From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24325 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2004 16:41:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24315 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2004 16:40:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Aug 2004 16:40:58 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7NGZbP6025563; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:35:37 -0400 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:38:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8644E70034; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:48:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Lincoln Peters Cc: Xconq list Subject: Re: Three thoughts In-Reply-To: <1093201052.2792.12916.camel@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2004 16:38:04.0647 (UTC) FILETIME=[900D3770:01C4892F] X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01004.txt.bz2 On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Lincoln Peters wrote: > Here's a rather crazy possible solution: Would it be possible to use > TclTk *and* another toolkit, such as GTK+, simultaneously? That might > allow us to not only use GTK+ to implement new features, but also to > "phase out" the TclTk code (since nobody seems to like TclTk anymore) > and replace it with GTK+ code. I think it would be possible, but probably would be rather hackish. Both Tk and GTK+ have their own window hierarchies, and that would require a fair amount of bookkeeping on Xconq's part, to make sure that focus gets restored after a window closes, etc.... Also, the "widget styles" of the two toolkits are a bit different and so the resulting UI would end up looking like Frankenstein, I think. Your idea does have the merits you suggest, though. Interesting.... > The situation illustrated here is the city Sausalito and a fighter > flying overhead. Within the city are infantry, armor, a bomber, a > battleship, and a carrier. If the ship types corresponded to U.S. Navy naming conventions, I think you would have two carriers and zero battleships. Not that it really matters.... The closup view window that you propose is an interesting idea, but I agree that we should try to avoid extra work to fish out an unit, if possible (as someone mentioned in a later message in this thread). One idea that I thought of would be magnify the icon of an unit if the cursor passes over it in a manner similar to that little bar of icons at the bottom of the MacOS X interface (IIRC). Or maybe that magnification should only happen when a modifier key is being pressed when the mouse passes over the unit, so that the magnified view does not normally get in the way of other units in the same hex (and possibly surrounding hexes). Eric