> My reasons for liking FLTK2 > 2. Better browser system (tree+supports multiline items)
Hopefully this will be resolved in *if*_1.2 :D > 4. Namespaces (fltk:: attracts less attention than Fl_ imo) Khm... :) > 3. Better menus (widget based) > 5. Better naming conventions Yes, these are part of discussions in previous threads. > I have been talking to bill about perhaps setting up a verions 3.0 for this > and letting 2.0 become the next version moving the 1.8 to 2.0. +1 ! > The pre-1.0 FLTK had the same problem, and we just had to draw a line > in the sand and focus on putting out a stable release, branch, and I'm not very good with pre-1.0 history; did 1.1 introduction required significant changes in pre-1.0 powered code ? > then let Bill and others play in HEAD/trunk while we maintained 1.0 > (and later 1.1). I would propose going even further: move next official version in trunk and make something like 'future' or 'xyz' branch for next major version, that will not be publicly known (but should be accessible), where Bill and interested parties can work (with appropriate known roadmap, of course) in peace without hate mails about frequent api changes and compilation issues. > Right now 2.0's foundation is cracked and the > ground has shifted. Before you move on to 3.0, you need to get 2.0 > to at least a 1.0 level of stability... Yes, but IMHO this will work only if current 2.0 does not start to reshifting again. Or... maybe it is a good time now to rethink some things, like Bill initiated moving Group into Widget, layout design (I am still for keeping it fully compatible with 1.x) and etc. Maybe is too early to speak about the future, but there will be even more custom widgets, custom code, complex applications... and at some point if potential 3.0 does not be unobtrusive replacement... the whole story will be repeated again. -- Sanel _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
