On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 08:41 -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Frank Bergmann wrote: > > On 09.09.2010 11:54, Peter Clifton wrote: > > >I'm not sure I see the point of making the whole top-level window a > > >dedicated widget per-se, although the goal to encapsulate various state > > >variables sounds excellent. > > > > > >I was never really sure what point to start sub-classing to make a new > > >widget. My acid test was usually whether that widget had useful > > >self-contained functionality which could be re-used in other places. > > > > If sub-classing a widget is really in focus, then proposal of > > (partly) switching to C++ comes in mind. > > > > My primary goal in doing things this way was to make a C++ port easier > and come out more C++-looking.
I've coded C++ before, and have spent a lot of time coding C / GTK stuff. I personally prefer C, and would like to see the core of PCB remain in C, possibly forming the basis of some notional "libpcb". C++ bindings for this would presumably be completely do-able. GUIs might be suited to C++, but that obviously depends on the toolkit used. Qt / Wx would obviously be C++. GTKMM isn't bad by the looks of it, but it somehow feels nicer to code GTK stuff in its native C. There is good / bad C coding style, and IMO PCB is filled with a legacy of very old style code which is not a shining example of how clean C programs can be. At the very least, I'd love the first step before a possible C++ port, to be as you suggest - cleaning up the old C code to make it more modern and readable. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user