world, but LyX can bridge
the gap nicely.
However, I'm concerned abut the future of Win32 port since it is based on
free version of qt which is not offered for the latest qt incarnations.
Does it mean that win32 port is cursed to stay in the old mud?
Has anyone considered to do a wxWidgets por
Gour wrote:
> However, I'm concerned abut the future of Win32 port since it is
> based on free version of qt which is not offered for the latest qt
> incarnations.
>
> Does it mean that win32 port is cursed to stay in the old mud?
>
> Has anyone considered to do a wxWi
Angus Leeming ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> No. But a gtk port has made progress. (gtk is licensed under the LGPL
> and has been ported to Win32.) The main LyX window is functional and
> a couple of the dialogs have been ported. The rest of the dialogs are
> from the XForms frontend.
Thank you for
Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Angus Leeming ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> No. But a gtk port has made progress. (gtk is licensed under the LGPL
>> and has been ported to Win32.) The main LyX window is functional and
>> a couple of the dialogs have been ported. The rest of the dialogs are
>>
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:01:24 +0200
Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason why wxWidgets toolkit is (somehow) avoided?
Well, I think someone would have to do it :)
> It's not that I'm pushing it, but, imho, it looks like a mature
> multi-platform toolkit with a fair licence.
The mo
Lars Gullik BjÃnnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> | Is there any reason why wxWidgets toolkit is (somehow) avoided?
>
> Only that nobody has done, or been interested enough to do the actual
> work.
Good to know that. Seeing qt port done, hearing about gtk...I thought maybe is
something wrong with
Karsten Heymann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The more "natural" Toolkit for LyX would be FLTK I think, because it
> seems to be quite close to xforms. But that would have to be done as
> well...
Why do you think it is more 'natural'?
Since LyX is going into GUI-independence territory, can we say
Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Since LyX is going into GUI-independence territory, can we say that some
| toolkit is 'more natural'?
I'd say that a C++ toolkit is "more natural", other than that it
really doesn't matter...
--
Lgb
Karsten Heymann wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:01:24 +0200
> Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason why wxWidgets toolkit is (somehow) avoided?
>
> Well, I think someone would have to do it :)
>
>> It's not that I'm pushing it, but, imho, it looks like a mature
>> multi-platfo
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Should we be interested in supporting a frontend based on Yet Another
| Toolkit? IMO, no. We should not waste our effort carelessly. The goal
| should be a more powerful tool accessible to more people.
But we won't actively hinder it.
Similar to the
Hello Gour,
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:15:07 +0200
Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karsten Heymann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > The more "natural" Toolkit for LyX would be FLTK I think, because it
> > seems to be quite close to xforms. But that would have to be done as
> > well...
>
> Why do y
Lars Gullik BjÃnnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'd say that a C++ toolkit is "more natural", other than that it
> really doesn't matter...
One more point. Although I know that the choice of GUI toolkit is evoking
religious war, I'm just thinking that at the present moment there are (maybe)
sep
Angus Leeming ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So, should we be interested in supporting a gtk frontend in the 1.5.x
> cycle? IMO, yes. If development goes the way I've outlined above,
> then it may also make sense to consider 'retiring' the XForms
> frontend.
> Should we be interested in supporti
Gour wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> I'd say that a C++ toolkit is "more natural", other than that it
>> really doesn't matter...
>
> One more point. Although I know that the choice of GUI toolkit is
> evoking religious war,
I don't think so. The Qt frontend exists
e question of win32 port.
Qt is not free for win32 and therefore further development is stalled, and my
initial point in bringing wxWidgets as a free cross-platform toolkit was with
the idea to solve the future of win32 port as a mean of further propagation of
LyX & LaTeX/TeX typesetting in a win3
Angus Leeming wrote:
>> The more "natural" Toolkit for LyX would be FLTK I think, because it
>> seems to be quite close to xforms. But that would have to be done as
>> well...
>
> I don't think that is true any longer. The LyX core sees absolutely
> nothing of the GUI toolkit. All toolits are, th
Gour wrote:
> Qt is not free for win32 and therefore further development is stalled, and
> my initial point in bringing wxWidgets as a free cross-platform toolkit
> was with the idea to solve the future of win32 port as a mean of further
> propagation of LyX & LaTeX/TeX typese
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Incidentally, Angus: Since xforms was the base of fltk, it aims to
> be highly compatible to xforms (synonymous functions etc.). It even
> provides a tool for converting *.fd files to fltk dialogs. Do you
> know if this statement is still true for xforms 1.x? Just curi
Angus Leeming wrote:
> However, fltk version 2 no longer aims to provide this compatibility.
Hmm, the fltk2 docs still state this to be true, and fluid also seems to
work with fltk2. Moreover I found this message (and nothing contrary):
http://www.fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s1+gfltk.general+Gfltk+v6
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Perhaps there's some vague hope, although the development of
Juergen> this seems to be very slow:
Juergen> http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/
Did anyone try that? How far is it from usefulness? This is not very
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Did anyone try that? How far is it from usefulness? This is not very
> clear from the status pages or the mailing lists.
Indeed. I wouldn't count on it yet. The clearest statement I found is this
(from Feb 2004):
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cygwin&m=107644957930216&w
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Did anyone try that? How far is it from usefulness? This is not
>> very clear from the status pages or the mailing lists.
Juergen> Indeed. I wouldn't count on it yet. The clearest statement
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:22:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Since LyX is going into GUI-independence territory, can we say that some
> | toolkit is 'more natural'?
>
> I'd say that a C++ toolkit is "more natural", other than that it
> really doesn
23 matches
Mail list logo
