On 18/02/2012 10:26 PM, Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > On 18.02.2012 10:17, Christophe Geuzaine wrote: >> >> On 18 Feb 2012, at 10:09, Mike Tsakiris wrote: >> >>> On 18/02/2012 6:27 PM, Manolo Gouy wrote: >>>>> On 17/02/2012 8:42 PM, fltk-dev@ wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dont you think that using the label "fltk3" might create problem in >>>>> future upgrades?. Something like "Fltk" might be a better choice. >>>>> >>>>> Mike. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I fully agree that the name fltk3 would be awkward if FLTK 4.x >>>> ever exists. The difficulty is that fltk is used by FLTK 2.0 >>>> with which FLTK 3.0 aims to be compatible. >>>> Do you suggest Fltk as opposed to fltk ? That would be error-prone. >>>> What about fl or FL ? >>> >>> I think fl will be fine. >> >> +1 for fl > > -1 for fl > > The name FLTK was born due to the fact the FL was too short and > ambiguous for (web) searches (amongst others, maybe): > > <quote> > "It is almost impossible to search for "FL" on the Internet, due to the > fact that it is also the abbreviation for Florida. After much debating > and searching for a new name for the toolkit, which was already in use > by several people, Bill came up with "FLTK", ... > </quote> > http://www.fltk.org/doc-1.1/intro.html > > We discussed it when FLTK3 was designed by Matt, and I was one of those > who would have preferred to use "fltk::", but (as Manolo said already) > unfortunately this was already used by FLTK 2. > > I'd still prefer a unique (name space) name (w/o the '3'), but fl > wouldn't be one that I'd choose. I have no idea for a better one, though. > > Albrecht
How about "matt"? He designed fltk3, so give him credit for that. Another one is _fltk as been an internal. Mike _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
