Michael Sweet wrote: > Albrecht Schlosser wrote: >> ... >> FLTK 1.3 should be the follow-up for FLTK 1.1 and should include the >> "most wanted" features like utf-8 and printing support. Binary ... >> Maybe FLTK 1.3 would only change the API and make use of some features >> that could not be implemented in 1.1 because of binary compatibility > > These two statements are somewhat contradictory... :)
Yes :-) There are different ways to the same target ... > Anyways, I'd vote against a 1.3 that just breaks the ABI with > random cleanup - what's the selling point for that release? It > will probably not get picked up. > > If we want to take baby steps and only incorporate 1 major new > feature in each minor release, then I'd say add the UTF-8 stuff as > 1.3 along with the (relatively minor) API/ABI changes, various > already-available widgets (Fl_Table and others), and Doxygen-based > documentation (which Matthias has been working on in a branch of > 1.1.x...) > > 1.4 could then add printing and any other useful stuff that is ready > for consumption. That's okay for me. :-) What I wanted to point out is, that big steps take time on both sides (FLTK development and (user) program development), so that it would take too long for some "success" for the end user. This is also a point of developer and end user acceptance. Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
