Re: (gnome gtk) et al

[Andreas Rottmann <a dot rottmann at gmx dot at>]

Steve Tell <tell at telltronics dot org> writes:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, David Pirotte wrote:
> 
> > > I really wonder why so few people seem interested in GTK+ 2.0
> > > bindings. I'd love to have Goops-based bindings for 2.0 (OO is really
> > > nice, if not necessary ;-) when dealing with widget sets IMO), and
> > > could lend a hand from time to time.
> > 
> > I really really would like to have goops-based any bindings, but Gtk+ 2.0
> > would be a must, I backup the idea
> 
> I'm interested in gtk+-2.0 (without requiring gnome) bindings also, and
> not only becaused I've been asked when some code of mine will build work
> with gtk+-2.0/2.2.
> 
> Not knowing much about goops yet, what would such bindings look like? I'd
> prefer to have somthing that is largely code-compatible with the current
> guile-gtk for gtk+-1.2.  Idealy I'd like a single guile+C codebase to be
> able to support both gtk+-1.2 and gtk+2.x for some transition period.
> It looks like this is reasonably straightforward for pure C uses of gtk+.
> 
Goops bindings would look quite different and would be much easier to
use because you won't have to specify the type of the widget in the
procedure name, eg. (gtk-widget-show w) will become (show w).

I think we should have a .def parser that can generate g-wrap modules
with an old-style interface and a goops-based interface (once g-wrap
supports goops, which I'd like to help at).

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | Rotty at ICQ      | 118634484 at ICQ | a dot rottmann at gmx dot at
http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Make free software, not war!