At 08:26 PM 6/9/98 +0900, P. E. Jareth Hein wrote:
SL Baur <steve(a)vmailer.xemacs.org> writes:
> Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 10:47:16PM -0700, Ben Wing wrote:
> > [Nobody's familiar with the lwlib code anymore]
>
> > Do you think we should aim at removing it
>
> Yes.
>
> > (using motif/lesstif, gtk, Qt, whatever (all of them ?)) ?
>
> Motif/lesstif no. Gtk or Qt (or both if the Qt licensing weren't so
> fucked) are preferable.
Well, we talked about this before... The big problem is that neither
gtk or Qt use Xt, and therfore all the resource-related code and event
loops would need to be rewritten. I for one would be more interested
in spending the time to really understand/rewrite/cleanup lwlib than
deal with the other headaches. I *like* the look and feel of lwlib
(if a couple of minor nits could be worked out of them). After my
current round of windmill tilting is done, I'll have a look at them.
I'd like to keep them, so I guess I'll do the maintaining.
I like lwlib as well - although I don't get to see the results much
anymore....
andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
" .sigs are like your face - rarely seen by you and uglier than you think"
Dr Andy Piper, Technical Architect, Parallax Solutions Ltd
mail: andyp(a)parallax.co.uk web:
www.parallax.co.uk/~andyp