This is the mail archive of the
guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: g-wrap and guile-gnome/gtk
- To: Rob Browning <rlb at cs dot utexas dot edu>, Ariel Rios <jarios at usa dot net>
- Subject: Re: g-wrap and guile-gnome/gtk
- From: Marius Vollmer <mvo at zagadka dot ping dot de>
- Date: 11 Nov 2000 21:09:43 +0100
- Cc: guile-gtk at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, Miroslav silovic <silovic at zesoi dot fer dot hr>
- References: <20001111173022.14524.qmail@nwcst322.netaddress.usa.net>
> 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?