On 19.02.2012, at 00:35, Bill Spitzak wrote: > I like "fl" as well. > > Using "Fl" could be a good trick to replace the fltk1 "Fl" object which > only has static methods. But it is now pretty standard to use lowercase > for namespaces, and besides it is doubtful it could be 100% compatible. > > I do think worrying about fltk2 compatibility is a mistake. It is > obvious that fltk1 compatiblity is wanted instead. > > On 02/18/2012 01:09 AM, 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. >> Let the others tune in also. >> Thank you. >> >> Mike.
IMHO, using fltk:: will lead to much confusion on the mailing list. Also, looking at how different 1, 2, and 3 are, I assume that FLTK 4 will again be quite different one day. And an app written for FLTK3 will not "just run" using FLTK4 (just as 1 is nto 2 ist not 3). Using the fltk3:: as a namespace will avoid attempts to compile fltk3 apps with fltk2 or fltk4. Should an app really need porting from fltk3 to fltk4, a simple search-and-replace should give a good start. #ifdef's are the wrong way! But as usual, I am of course open for discussing this. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
