On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Konovalov, Vadim (Vadim)** CTR ** <[email protected]> wrote: >> I haven't heard from you in a while and was wondering were you were at >> in reviewing and/or incorporating the changes I made to Tcl::Tk for >> perl/tk compatibility? > > Hi, > > indeed, I was planning with gathering your pieces, but eventually forgot > about the problem, sorry. > Right now I am in vacation trip till 13th of may w/o Internet. > >> If you don't think the changes fit your planned direction for the >> Tcl::Tk package, I was thinking that another option for the changes is >> to be released as a separate package (something like a new Tcl::pTk >> package ) >> >> What do you think? > > I really like this solution - because it was my blue dream and real > preference to have Tcl::Tk module really small - essentially one single PM > file. >
Thats where the problems lies. The changes I made to be nearly 100% perl/tk compatible are much too large to fit in one .pm file. There just are too many things to handle from the original perl/tk package. > But your solution has an unfortunate problem, though. > Having yet another perl+tk solution will make people confused. > They will not know what to select between Tkx, perl/Tk, Tcl::Tk and Tcl::pTk. > I agree this could be a problem. If I were to come up with some words to help someone choose, it would be this: Tkx: For developers with no perl/Tk experience, looking to create new GUI scripts using perl and tk (i.e. no existing perl/tk code to support). perl/Tk: Not a good choice. Package is not keeping up with the Tcl/Tk releases. Only bug fixes are being committed. Tcl::Tk For developers with some perl/Tk background, writing new code, but no existing perl/Tk codebase to support. Tcl::pTk For developers with perl/Tk background and an existing perl/Tk codebase to support. For perl/Tk developers looking to take advantage of the look/feel updates in Tcl/Tk 8.5 and above. Does the above make sense? Thanks, John
