James Henstridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, currently people can use the lower level _gtk module to write
> GTK programs (and I know some people do use it -- they see it as a
> good way of prototyping interfaces that can then be translated to C
> very quickly). I wouldn't want this abil
I have not taken a detailed look into how much work would be required to
implement this idea. Also, uni started this week so I will not have quite
as much time as I have had over the holidays. If anyone wants to test out
this idea, it would be great.
It seems like a big job adding that kind of
Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> > Sorry for the length. James, if you think this won't work, I'd like
> > to see what I'm missing.
>
> I have a feeling it's not so much a matter of whether it will work
> or not, but the amount of work involved.
That's not the
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Sorry for the length. James, if you think this won't work, I'd like
> to see what I'm missing.
I have a feeling it's not so much a matter of whether it will work or
not, but the amount of work involved. Right now, it takes 2 python
objects to wrap each Gtk object, one at
I thought about this some more, and then returned to an earlier
message of James'. I think I spotted a flaw in James' logic. Here is
the excerpt:
I looked at this a bit, but it is a little difficult. First of all, you
want these two things to occur:
- The C level GtkObject should
