From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de>
To: Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>, Ariel Rios <jarios@usa.net>
Cc: guile-gtk@sourceware.cygnus.com, Miroslav silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr>
Subject: Re: g-wrap and guile-gnome/gtk
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:11:00 -0000
Message-id: <87lmuqnud4.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
References: <20001111173022.14524.qmail@nwcst322.netaddress.usa.net>
X-SW-Source: 2000-q4/msg00014.html

> From: Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
> Subject: g-wrap and guile-gnome/gtk
> To: Ariel Rios <jarios@usa.net>
> Date: 02 Nov 2000 13:28:49 -0600
> 
> 
> What I'm wondering is if we ought to at least discuss whether or not
> we could collaborate on a common solution.  Right now I think your
> solution has a few things g-wrap doesn't and vice-versa.

If I remember correctly, build-guile-gtk is actually derived from a
early version of g-wrap.  I quickly decided to `roll my own' because
that was easy to do and I didn't know what I wanted precisely.

Build-guile-gtk is still a one-off hack and needs to be redone
completely to make it reasonably clean.  This includes the syntax of
the defs files themselves, but hopefully we can clean that up in a
backward compatible way because they are already defs files out there
that are distributed independently from guile-gtk.

Working towards g-wrap would be the right thing, this time.

Because g-wrap def files are just Scheme code, I think we should start
by trying to write implementations for define-object, define-func etc
in terms of the normal g-wrap features.  A *.defs file could then
start like this

    (use-modules (gtk g-wrap-defs))

    (define-object GtkObject
      (fields ...))

or build-guile-gtk could be a thin wrapper that invokes g-wrap in the
right way.

Does that make sense?