Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com&gt; writes: > why can't gtk and xt coexist? They are completely #%!＠ed in terms of their event loops co-existing. gtk barely looks like an X app, much less a well behaved Xt app. -bp > "William M. Perry" wrote: > > > <nic(a)niss.ac.uk&gt; writes: > > > > > Jens Lautenbacher wrote on 21-March-2000: > > > > > > ->now I'm really not in the position to argue on technical stuff with > > > ->people like Ben or Bill or Michael, but shouldn't we at least consider > > > ->to remove some of the backward compatibility stuff for xemacs? gtk > > > ->can be compiled on quite a big range of unix machines (and on win32, > > > ->too by the way, although I don't think that this will be an option the > > > ->win32 people like to consider). > > > > > > Removing X/Xt support from XEmacs would result in all of us being sent > > > to bed with no supper. > > > > I'm not talking about _removing_ it. I'm talking about having another > > option. Basically if you ask for gtk support (I don't think this would be > > turned on by default except in infodock), you lose certain features, like: > > > > - multi-display capabilities (until gtk supports it) > > - Xt integration > > > > But you gain: > > > > - gnome integration (feh) > > - themes (oh boy I'm all hot now) > > - Ability to write real gtk applications from emacs lisp > > > > Basically, this is just replacing the lwlib cruft with gtk widgets and then > > doing rep-gtk (http://rep-gtk.sourceforge.net) for the 'real' emacs-lisp. > > > > -Bill P. > > -- > Ben > > In order to save my hands, I am cutting back on my mail. I also write > as succinctly as possible -- please don't be offended. If you send me > mail, you _will_ get a response, but please be patient, especially for > XEmacs-related mail. If you need an immediate response and it is not > apparent in your message, please say so. Thanks for your understanding. > > See also http://www.666.com/ben/typing.html.