Some other mobile platforms, like Symbian, Windows Mobile (dying?), etc
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:54 PM, MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK)
ian.macart...@selexgalileo.com wrote:
Additionally, FLTK currently includes only a stable Windows port, is
there any plan to release/maintain some other
On 09.08.2011, at 14:42, Qi Luo wrote:
Some other mobile platforms, like Symbian, Windows Mobile (dying?), etc
Windows CE was once supported. IIRC the port took less than three days. But
nobody seemed to use it. I'd like to see iOS (jailbreak) and Android.
- Matthias
Good to hear that FLTK 3.0 will be in place.
First I want to thank all of your hard work. I really appreciate it.
FLTK is such a lightweight widget toolkit which people can't usually
ignore, while some other projects are dying or becoming more heavy.
I've been using FLTK1.x for years, but barely
Additionally, FLTK currently includes only a stable Windows port, is
there any plan to release/maintain some other ports in/with community?
I do not understand the question; the fltk stable releases are for
Win32/64, *nix/X11, and OSX.
Which platform or community would you like to see
BTW Matt can you post up Hello World (from hello.cxx listing 1 in
1.3 FLTK Basics doc) in 3.0 syntax.
Easiest thing to do for that is to take a look at the fltk3 tree in svn
- the files in the test/ folder are now converted to fltk3 form, whilst
those in the test1/ folder are still in fltk1
Am 10.07.11, 15:49 +0200 schrieb Matthias Melcher:
as you may have read, I have been trying to get the FLTK 1 and FLTK 2 branch
back together into a single FLTK 3 branch.
This reads like many more APIs become available. How do you think to can
test them all? Will there come automated testing
These are the points that I see as being important.
- 1.3 is more important than 2.0 as it's stable+released and has many
more followers
- Having a stable version
- Devs willing to work on maintaining FLTK (like Matt)
What were the reasons that we had 2.0 in the first place. From what I
On 10.07.2011, at 23:25, Ian MacArthur wrote:
This seems like the best bet *to me*, though we might get away with a less
complete fltk2 compatibility layer, since the fltk2 API moved around a bit
anyway, and it *seems to me* (probably wrongly) to have less of an installed
base.
Though
Hi Matthias,
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Matthias Melcher m...@matthiasm.com wrote:
as you may have read, I have been trying to get the FLTK 1 and FLTK 2
branch back together into a single FLTK 3 branch.
I am currently using 1.3.0. So whatever you do, please, make sure that the
new
Hi all,
The following are my thoughts (for what they count) on the issue, (from a 2.0
standpoint!)
THE STATUS
I converted the FLTK1 source code into FLTK3 namespace and added a tiny bit
of FLTK2 code. The result is a fully working virtually bug free version of
FLTK 3
Dear users, dear developers,
as you may have read, I have been trying to get the FLTK 1 and FLTK 2 branch
back together into a single FLTK 3 branch.
THE IDEA
==
I am hoping to get the main features of both versions back into a single
release, effectively doubling the number of
I'm not a big fltk2 user (though I do dabble) so I can't really say how much
impact the fltk3 changes would have.
I like the way fltk3 is looking so far, but I have a lot of fltk1 code around.
I don't mind changing to the fltk3 API, but the compatibility layer will make
that easier.
On 10 Jul
12 matches
Mail list logo
