>...[compile-time or run-time?] I don't know what is the best way to go.
It is always hard to know the best way to go if you don't know where you are going.
A GUI/GDI library might fill one or more needs:
1) A conceptually clean library, easy-to-use, good for teaching GUI principles, and useful for real applications where the emphasis is on portability. Controlling the look-and-feel on different platforms not a concern. Access to platform specific features not a concern.
2) An adaptable library for applications which do need a certain amount of control over look-and-feel on different platforms. Portability is quite important, but so is ability to adapt look-and-feel to different platforms. Access to some platform specific features may be a concern.
3) Totally controllable library for applications which need to manage every aspect of look-and-feel, and need access to every feature the platform provides. Portability not a concern.
(That's an oversimplification, but good enough for discussion.)
Baring a stroke of genius (although on Boost that isn't totally impossible), it seems very hard to fill all of those needs.
It seems to me that most people who need (3) (or think they need (3)) aren't going to use a portable library anyhow. I'd write-off (3) as a target.
Once you get over the mental hurtle of being willing to say "this library doesn't try to fill every possible need", then (1) starts to look very attractive. It is a niche many other GUI libraries seem to have ignored. If you concentrate on a conceptually clean and elegant design, then it may turn out that it can also accommodate (2) fairly well.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
