On 2019-05-20 19:26:38 +, kdevel said:
Open a new document in MS Word or any other word processor and then
press and hold the "L" key until the cursor hits the right margin. What
do you see? Evenly spaced els?
The layout stuff we do is not meant to handle text layouting. That will
be
On Sunday, 19 May 2019 at 13:07:36 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
On 2019-05-12 17:33:16 +, kdevel said:
[...]
What about correctness?
Correctness of what?
Open a new document in MS Word or any other word processor and
then press and hold the "L" key until the cursor hits the right
On 2019-05-12 17:33:16 +, kdevel said:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 09:15:41 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 06:30:56 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
Our focus is executable size (I'm an old school guy) and speed.
What about correctness?
Correctness of what? Of the
On Monday, 13 May 2019 at 09:25:05 UTC, ztop wrote:
[...]
The old site is archived in wayback
https://web.archive.org/web/20180103191733/http://antigrain.com/
Thanks. That is the page I have been looking for:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 17:33:16 UTC, kdevel wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 09:15:41 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 06:30:56 UTC, Robert M. Münch
wrote:
Our focus is executable size (I'm an old school guy) and
speed.
What about correctness?
[...]
For some simple
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 09:15:41 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 06:30:56 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
Our focus is executable size (I'm an old school guy) and speed.
What about correctness?
[...]
For some simple real-time grid example see:
On 2019-05-09 20:42:54 +, Adam D. Ruppe said:
i do web and gui
:-)
Though my gui library is 100% from scratch on linux, and... barely even
good enough for myself to use. I really need to write a new text edit
widget.
Ok, so a GUI based app framework really seems to be a "hot topic".
On Thursday, 9 May 2019 at 11:48:59 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
Good to know that there are not only web-stack people around
these days.
i do web and gui
Though my gui library is 100% from scratch on linux, and...
barely even good enough for myself to use. I really need to write
a new text
On Thursday, 9 May 2019 at 11:48:59 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
The application won't know/see a difference on which platform
it runs. I expect some differences in how GUI actions are
handled or communicated to the framework, however these should
be rare and can be handled with conditional
On 2019-05-08 13:31:40 +, Ron Tarrant said:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 10:21:34 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
However, I'm happy to post some updates/screenrecordings to show our progress.
Works for me.
Ok, so I need to find a good name for this thing which I can use as
thread subject
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 10:21:34 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
However, I'm happy to post some updates/screenrecordings to
show our progress.
Works for me.
What are you interested in or what would you do with such a
framework?
You sparked my interest because it sounds like you're
On 2019-05-08 09:15:41 +, Ron Tarrant said:
This sounds like a complete replacement for either QT, MFC, or GTK as
well as Glade/QT Designer all rolled into one.
Let's say it's an alternative ;-)
All the ones you listed are either too big, too complicated, bring too
much stuff that we
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 06:30:56 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
The goal is to have a generic framework for desktop apps where
you can directly start to work on the app and don't have to
care about getting all the necessary environment and
building-blocks up & running.
* High speed 2D
On 2019-05-07 18:02:16 +, Ron Tarrant said:
I'm curious. What's the ultimate aim of the framework you're working
on? An aid to building web apps? Desktop apps?
The goal is to have a generic framework for desktop apps where you can
directly start to work on the app and don't have to care
On 2019-05-07 17:43:57 +, H. S. Teoh said:
Note: it's a very bad idea to call a member function 'init'. It
conflicts with the built-in .init property of all types, and can lead to
strange bugs / confusing behaviours.
Call it something else, like 'initialize'.
Yes, thanks. I'm currently
On Monday, 6 May 2019 at 16:50:14 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
I want to build a framework which gives some structure to the
app using it.
I'm curious. What's the ultimate aim of the framework you're
working on? An aid to building web apps? Desktop apps? Or
something more specific like 3D,
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 07:21:52PM +0200, Robert M. Münch via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> > interface myFrameworkApp {
> > void init();
> > }
[...]
Note: it's a very bad idea to call a member function 'init'. It
conflicts with the built-in .init property of all types, and can lead to
On 2019-05-07 09:06:03 +, Kagamin said:
struct myFramework {
myFrameworkAccessor myFWApp;
}
interface myFrameworkApp {
void init();
}
main(){
myFramework mf = new myFramework;
mf.myFWApp.init(); // this bombs because myFWApp is NULL
}
struct
On 2019-05-07 09:06:03 +, Kagamin said:
struct myFramework {
myFrameworkAccessor myFWApp;
}
interface myFrameworkApp {
void init();
}
main(){
myFramework mf = new myFramework;
mf.myFWApp.init(); // this bombs because myFWApp is NULL
}
struct
On 2019-05-07 09:06:03 +, Kagamin said:
struct myFramework {
myFrameworkAccessor myFWApp;
}
interface myFrameworkApp {
void init();
}
main(){
myFramework mf = new myFramework;
mf.myFWApp.init(); // this bombs because myFWApp is NULL
}
struct
On 2019-05-06 18:21:27 +, Adam D. Ruppe said:
Just the constructor. It is so they don't try to skip a step calling
the constructor themselves. But, of course, it doesn't have to be
private.
Ok, that makes sense.
What I want to avoid is that explicit init line in main().
I did things
struct myFramework {
myFrameworkAccessor myFWApp;
}
interface myFrameworkApp {
void init();
}
main(){
myFramework mf = new myFramework;
mf.myFWApp.init(); // this bombs because myFWApp is NULL
}
struct myFrameworkAccessor {
myFrameworkApp instance()
On 2019-05-06 20:03, Robert M. Münch wrote:
What I want to avoid is that explicit init line in main(). So, the user
should derive whatever make sense for the app, but main() is never
touched by the user. main() should initialize the user's app code
"automatically" and be part of the
On Monday, 6 May 2019 at 18:03:18 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
Any reason why makeing things private?
Just the constructor. It is so they don't try to skip a step
calling the constructor themselves.
But, of course, it doesn't have to be private.
What I want to avoid is that explicit init
On 2019-05-06 17:04:47 +, Adam D. Ruppe said:
I'd make that thing's constructor private, and then offer a helper
template function that actually creates it and the user passes a type.
Any reason why makeing things private? The struct is more like an
application state to avoid globals.
On Monday, 6 May 2019 at 16:50:14 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
myFramework mf = new myFramework;
I'd make that thing's constructor private, and then offer a
helper template function that actually creates it and the user
passes a type.
---
// inside your library
struct myFramework {
I want to build a framework which gives some structure to the app using
it. To create this structure I would like to use interfaces. The
application then uses these interfaces and implements the required
functions. I want to provide a clear initialization sequence for the
app through the
27 matches
Mail list logo
