From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2393 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2003 10:00:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2376 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2003 10:00:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO octopussy.utanet.at) (213.90.36.45) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2003 10:00:09 -0000 Received: from paris.utanet.at ([213.90.36.7]) by octopussy.utanet.at with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 193vKK-0000g7-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:00:08 +0200 Received: from dsl-234-247.utaonline.at ([212.152.234.247] helo=rotty-ipv4.yi.org) by paris.utanet.at with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 193vKI-0007IA-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:00:06 +0200 Received: from alice.rhinosaur.lan ([192.168.1.3] ident=mail) by rotty-ipv4.yi.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 193vEN-0000Q2-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:53:59 +0200 Received: from andy by alice.rhinosaur.lan with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 193vEN-0000us-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:53:59 +0200 To: Steve Tell Cc: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: (gnome gtk) et al References: From: Andreas Rottmann Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <871y09iclk.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 Steve Tell 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@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.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!