Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
> Edi wrote:
>> Does that mean fltk-2 will be no longer developed? I'm using fltk-e because
>> I think that the API is much better than fltk-1.1.
>
> There's no *official* statment (yet?), but it appears that there is
> currently no active maintainer, there are only sporadic checkins (mostly
> special/new features that someone needs) since more than a year now, and
> the latest fixes have all been done by flkt-1 maintainers.
>
> No one seems to be interested in fixing fltk-2 bugs for years now :-(
>
> OTOH, if we could find maintainers who are using fltk-2 and are
> interested in fixing the bugs ...
There should probably be some official statement about fltk2
at this point.
Being a 1.x guy, it's hard for me to say what the deal is with 2,
it's almost a separate culture; there's no possibility of crossover
between the two; you either go with one API or the other, you can't
really do both.
I think it was in the plan to have compatibility hooks in fltk2
so that older 1.x code could still use fltk2, but I think that
fell apart because it was too restricting on development
and was imperfect, since internally the designs are so different.
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
