> Last year(?), during the discussions about 1.3.x and beyond, someone > suggested abstracting out a common library of low-level functions that > would then sit below both FLTK1 and FLTK2. This was just to streamline > developer effort and reduce the overall code base. > > It could also be a means to start pulling the two developments together > over time, ... but as there are only a few active developers for FLTK1 > and even fewer for FLTK2 it's all a bit pie-in-the-sky :-( > > D.
Hi, I've been thinking this over a bit more. I have a couple of folks that are c++ programming students. Perhaps I could make use of them to get something going. I guess there are a couple of different ways to approach this. One would be to take a similar approach to FLTK2 (fork and start from a FLTK1 base). The second would be to develop a c++ api as an optional library leaving the lower level intact and in c. The latter would probably require a bit more effort to implement. Would there be any interest in such a beast? I don't think I would take the same approach as FLTK2 though. A couple of examples would be to drop the namespace use in favor of a class naming convention that is similar to FLTK1 and most certainly an object oriented event handling mechanism. The begin/end hocus pocus would probably be a casualty too. A minimalist c++ interface if you will. It would not be a demonstration of c++ mastery. No templates or fancy c++ tricks. The goal would be to create (as much as p ossible) an easy transition between the two APIs. The FLTK2 classes could probably be used as a good starting point though. I haven't looked at the lower layers from this perspective enough yet to know how feasible it would be or whether it could be done without any changes to the lower level code. I think compatility and coexistence would be primary requirements. Any thoughts? Thanks, -G _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
