On 20 Jun 2008, at 16:00, matthiasm wrote: > On 20.06.2008, at 16:32, Roman Kantor wrote: > >> But that is just my selfish opinion, I have some code (cca 100k >> lines) >> depending on fltk1 and need to keep it working and having it >> production-ready more less all the time. And I care more about >> practical >> features like utf-8, printing etc than having the best api in the >> word. > > > Fair enough. I just might give this a try with a few essential files > and see how it works. If we can do this in reasonable time, we will > have double the developer power after the break.
Like Roman, I really need to have a working lib... Still, 1.1.9 won't go away if we try this. If Matthias thinks he can show this working, then I'll try to help out (although, as ever, mine time's restricted...) One thing though, is whether Bill will buy into this or not? A lot of the stuff that's happened with fltk-2 has been driven by Bill - and I do mean in a *good* way and in a *bad* way - for example when he has sync'd up his versions from nuke and etc. over the years. How will this fit in? _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
