Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:26:56 +0200 From: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Qt vs GTK Message-ID: <20000717212656.A34207@cichlids.cichlids.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000717121626.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:16:26PM -0700 References: <20000717123655.A10197@cichlids.cichlids.com> <XFMail.000717121626.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake John Baldwin (jhb@FreeBSD.ORG): > I don't care if we have both Qt and GTK backends (we _can_ have > both, btw), but I don't want to do absolute positioning. The I've looked at the GTK part today. It's very hard, since GTK is C while the objects used within libh want C++ backends. > nicest GUI toolkit I've ever used was the Java AWT and Swing, because > Java has these spiffy things called layout managers that allow you > to just create a button and throw it in a layout and voila, it all > gets sized and positioned for you. This makes it easy to write, > and I'd like the same ability in our Tcl scripts to make it easy to > write scripts w/o having to worry about laying widgets out by hand. Yes, I understand this. However, as I told you on IRC: The current way is just too ugly. I plan to make this abstraction layer the default, if no absolute positions are given, which is WAY nicer. Additionally, if you really WANT to specifiy where a widget goes, it's just a param more. Nice, eh? Alex -- cat: /home/alex/.sig: No such file or directory To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000717212656.A34207>