On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:21, J. Liles wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM, MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How did you handle text? >> >> Is that still the stock fltk/XFT text interface? I struggled with the >> Cairo text interfaces! > > Yeah, I'm still using FLTK/Xft for text. Haven't played with the cairo > routines for that yet, but I am curious to see how it might affect > speed. The so-called "toy" API is straightforward enough IIRC, but limited - the full text API's, well, a bit more involved... > Alas, this is not, as far as I can find, actually stated anywhere > formally. I guess that's because fltk3 is still pretty alpha, maybe, so there's not that much about it out there yet. Or am I answering the wrong question? > I did try to take a look at FLTK 3's diffs, but I couldn't > get it to build and gave up. Hmm, odd... Do you know what revision you tried? Works OK for me, on a variety of platforms... > FLTK 1.3 'mostly works already' and I > haven't been able to find any articulation of what FLTK 3 does to > improve anything. Slightly more C++'ish API (namespaces and, you know, stuff), "interchangeable" API support (so it can build fltk-1.x code or 3.x code, maybe 2.x code...) and, as discussed, a cleaner low-level graphics driver abstraction... > I have a lot of irons in the fire ATM and many ideas for the future. Yeah, we hear that... > There are few things that I dislike more than > dealing with the X APIs (I've done substantial work on a window > manager in the past) Though I find them slightly less painful than the win32 API's, but that may just be me (though I think not...!) _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
