Matthias Melcher schrieb:
>
> On 11.07.2011, at 14:26, Edzard Egberts wrote:
>
>>> I added a wrapper that makes FLTK 1 source code compile with the
>>> FLTK 3 library. This is a true wrapper, not just some #define
>>> list of new names. I have started a very minimal wrapper that
>>> makes FLTK 3 source code compatible to FLTK 2 as well. To verify
>>> the effort, all FLTK 1 tests compile and mostly run in this
>>> wrapper mode. There are still a lot of bugs though!
I want to understand this right - you mean a lot of wrapper related bugs?
> The wrapper happens to 99% in header files in a separate directory.
> There are only very minimal additions in FLTK3 to make the wrapper
> work, which is, every class has one additional pointer to the
> wrapper, and every virtual function has a few lines of extra code
> that starts with:
>
> if (wrapper) { (...) }
I continue not to like this, to much "every" and it feels to me, it's
not the way "virtual" is ment for. Wrapper should be a layer,
overwriting virtual.
> The wrapper generates very very little code if not used!
The wrapper generates overhead, even if not used. ;o)
> An additional benefit to having the wrapper is the ability to create
> a perfect wrapper into pretty much any scripting language.
One click wonder (Eierlegendewollmilchsau)? Maybe keeping it simple is a
better goal, than providing support for *potential* new purposes?
>> Also this way goes on, to leave developers stuck to old code.
Thinking some development steps further - are you sure, the wrapper will
keep downwards compatibilty all the time, when people are using old code
and old concepts? Wouldn't it tighten developers to think down
compatible? I would prefer to switch and keeping involved, even when it
is necessary, to readjust code from time to time.
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
