Re: Milestone 1 submission...
At 10:09 PM 4/12/00 -0700, Ben Wing wrote:
i think it's wrong to tout the raw gtk-* interface as the
"right"
interface to
write lisp in.
in fact, if at all possible i'd suggest not exposing this at all. instead,
expand the generic interface as necessary to include new gtk features. you
could also provide an "escape" mechanism for adding or querying raw gtk
properties that are not implemented in the abstract interface, but i do NOT
want to see a proliferation of lisp code that is gtk-specific. although
creating raw interfaces may seem "easier" and more powerful, it is in fact a
classic mistake made by novice interface designers, and invariably comes back
to haunt them.
Absolutely right.
From an XEmacs point-of-view the statement "..abstract interface
is beyond
the scope of this project...." seems erronous to me. Given the effort
we've
put into clean abstraction we absolutely can't start breaking this with a
proliferation of gtk specific dialogs. Especially as its not clear to me
how some of these constructs would map onto other windowing systems. I
would be the first to admit, however, that what we have right now API-wise
is a million miles from the richness of the gtk APIs. Whether this is a bad
thing or not is less clear to me...
I like the XML glade idea.
andy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Andy Piper
Principal Consultant, BEA Systems Ltd