On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 03:46:45AM -0400, Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
I like the third option... I'm not going to use gdb as much as Chris
so I think he is in a better position to maintain it.
However, I agree to take care of cutting the first stable gdb +
Cygwin, W11 Tcl/Tk version.
I would
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:02:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
I would say that what we already have is:
Tcl/Tk: half-Windows/half-Cygwin, GDI
Err...ok. If by this you mean
tcl: cygwin (no GUI), but it doesn't do cygwin paths correctly in all
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote (heavily [snip]ped):
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:02:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
Although (I think) it would be possible to have 2 Tk DLL's (Cygwin, X
vs Cygwin, GDI), I like Charles Wilson's idea to
In the interests of clarity, let's agree on some terminology:
a cygwin version --
uses the cygwin1.dll for runtime services (like printf etc)
a native windows version
uses msvcrt.dll for runtime services
an X version
uses xlib calls to draw stuff on a display
this requires a xserver of
Charles Wilson wrote:
Using these terms, what we already have is
cygwin, GDI
ActiveState provides a
native, GDI
What is being proposed is
cygwin, X
Note that tcl and itcl do not, themselves, do any display-oriented
processing. So GDI vs. X is meaningless for them. They could be
released
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
In the interests of clarity, let's agree on some terminology:
a cygwin version --
uses the cygwin1.dll for runtime services (like printf etc)
a native windows version
uses msvcrt.dll for runtime services
an X version
Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
I would say that what we already have is:
Tcl/Tk: half-Windows/half-Cygwin, GDI
Err...ok. If by this you mean
tcl: cygwin (no GUI), but it doesn't do cygwin paths correctly in all
cases
tk: cygwin, X11
As you can see above, the current Tcl version uses
