sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com>
writes:
Ben> However, one thing that you absolutely must not do is remove the Xt support.
Ben> This would be an incredibly unfriendly thing to do as it would prevent people
Ben> from using any widget set other than Qt or GTK. Keep in mind that people run
Ben> XEmacs on all sorts of different versions of X in Unix, and Xt is the standard
Ben> and the only toolkit that probably exists on all of these systems.
Yup. We also really need X/Xt resources to work. Jamie got that one right.
Well, I don't really see any reasonable way of integrating _any_ gtk
support with an Xt based application. NONE. This is why my personal
preference leans towards using Qt. Qt 2.x comes with two snazzy widgets -
one for making a Qt widget look like a normal Xt widget and vice versa.
This would have made replacing the widgets and lwlib stuff trivial.
But, using Qt would bring in horrendous licensing issues. Trying to get
RMS and Sun to allow linking with Qt - I'd rather stick a railroad spike
thru my chest than try to argue that one.
Having X/Xt resources work is in my opinion useless. XEmacs runs on other
platforms that do not have X resources (win32, macintosh, and tty spring to
mind). We should encourage people to use custom instead of X resources.
-Bill P.