Fabio Bracci wrote: > I have a couple of thoughts: > > @1.3-> Well, I already moved my small application from 11.7 to 1.1.9 and > that already was quite a hassle, first to get the code compiled again > against the widgets,
Are you sure that it was changing from 1.1.7 to 1.1.9? I don't think that there have been many changes that prohibited compiling old code. Can you tell us more about these problems? > and then to fix some segfaults (within a group of > widgets I was removing and then re-adding a small widget, this worked in > 1.1.7 but then in 1.1.9 the memory management probably changed). Ah, that seems to be something I experienced, too. But again: Are you sure that your previous version was 1.1.7? If you say that it was a version before 1.1.5-rc2, then I think that I know what it's about. But I don't think that much has changed between 1.1.7 and 1.1.9 WRT memory management / allocation or something about this. I know that there are problems with widget deletion (STR 1894 [1]), and I intend to address this soon for FLTK 1.3, but you can help, if you can tell us more about your problem (and your solution). However, the problem with STR 1894 is that it is not easy to reproduce the crashes with real applications. It took me lots of time to find out what happened, and to make the test cases. The fact that your program worked with a previous FLTK version could just have been good luck with the memory layout of your widgets, be we surely need to get more info. How did you fix this deletion problem? Did you delete the widgets with delete, or did you use Fl::delete_widget()? > Therefore I would like to avoid such a waste of time when moving from a > fltk version to the other; I'm wondering how much trouble I'll get by > changing by a major version instead of a minor version. Any experience? FLTK 1.3 is not yet a production version, it's a development version, but it's very similar to 1.1.9, with two major differences: (1) It uses internal utf-8 encoding. Many users asked for this, and it is now under development. If you do only use the ASCII character range (32-127), you may not see a difference, but if you use other characters above this (maybe international characters in the range 128-255, ISO-8859-1 or ISO-8859-15 or some other encoding), then you need to encode these characters as utf-8. (2) It uses int instead of short for coordinates. That's what you asked for. Maybe this will work for you OOTB. If it doesn't, then you can help the FLTK project with your experiences. There is also one minor difference in the Fl_Scroll widget, but this may not be important for you. Thus: If your application works with FLTK 1.1.9, then the probability is _very_ high that it will work with FLTK 1.3.0, unless you are using international characters. You should give it a try at least. And please report again about your findings, we're interested in feedback. Albrecht [1] http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L1894 _______________________________________________ fltk-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-bugs
