On 11/24/2010 03:33 AM, Martin DeMello wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Jacques Garrigue > <garri...@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote: >> I'm not sure which examples you looked at for lablgtk2. >> The goals of lablgtk are: >> * be as close as possible to the spirit of Gtk+ >> * while providing type and memory safety >> * and allow comfortable use through objects and optional arguments >> This resulted in a 2-layer implementation, with a lower layer >> that just wraps basic Gtk+ calls, and an object layer on top of it. >> Some examples mix the two layers, which may look strange, but >> I think that when you use only the upper layer, this is clean enough. >> (The lower layer is not dirty, but converting between the two may be >> verbose and look clumsy). > > That might be the problem, then. I was looking at the examples in the > translation of the gtk tutorial, and a lot of it seemed like C code > translated to OCaml. Could you point me to some example of code > written using the high level API?
The LablGTK tutorial I am aware of[1] uses the high-level API. The high-level API isn't notably higher-level than the base API in terms of what calls are necessary, but it wraps everything up in objects and makes the data structures nicer. The API call sequences are roughly the same. - Michael 1. http://wwwfun.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/soft/olabl/lablgtk.html _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
