On May 30, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Duncan Gibson wrote:
>> Fact is, FLTK 2.x and FLTK 1.1 are quite far apart. Too far to just
>> throw a compatibility layer on top and everything's peachy.
>
> This is going to sound a bit like Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-)
> ("Apart from roads and sanitation, what have the Romans done for us?")
> but apart from UTF-8, C++ namespaces, consistent naming, and the
> change
> of Widget/Group inheritance, what are the differences between 1.1 and
> 2.0 ?
A woman can debug code without having to fear of being mugged?
Remember how it used to be before the Romans came?
The big items are:
- new layout system (which maybe could be emulating 1.1)
- all widget coordinates are 0,0 at the top left (which is a good
thing, but messes up all 1.1 custom code)
- menus are completly different, depending on the FLTK grouping
instead of that silly array (also better in 2.0, but a big cludge
required to emulate the 1.1 behavior)
- FLUID1 has a lot more features than FLUID2
- some widgets do not yet exist in 2.0 that are in 1.1
- FLTK2 uses a scheming system for many widget attributes
- FLTK1 offers two alternative themes
But yes, a compatibility layer is possible to a certain degree (not
just a few #defines), but will it be good enough to convert
production software and commercial software into the 2.0 world?
> Oh, and another minor point. [Maybe this should be a new thread?]
>
> There has been talk of 1.2 before and people have even referred to
> *using* fltk-1.2 already. (...) To avoid possible confusion, it
> might make sense to call the new
> version 1.3 (or even 1.5). This would make it clear that this is
> a big jump from 1.1.8, ...
That is a very good point! Confusion is already big enough with 1 vs. 2
Matthias
----
http://robowerk.com/
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
