On Wednesday 30 April 2008 08:42:31 Cyrille Berger wrote:
Forwarding to kde-bindings, since they are the people who know better about
this.
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Allen Winter wrote:
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 18:34:29 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
of course, if bindings ever get made for
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Richard Dale wrote:
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Allen Winter wrote:
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 18:34:29 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
of course, if bindings ever get made for another module we're going
to be in this same boat again aren't we? i wonder if later on it
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 13:08:43 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:48:01PM +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Allen Winter wrote:
So we seem to have reached consensus on a policy (enclosed below).
was the dependency issue discussed anywhere? I'm 17700
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Cyrille Berger wrote:
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Allen Winter wrote:
It's not something I noticed until after I put it in. It's in
kdebase because that's where the old one was and in /workspace because
that's the X11 specific stuff. I added a cmake variable
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 18:34:29 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Cyrille Berger wrote:
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Allen Winter wrote:
It's not something I noticed until after I put it in. It's in
kdebase because that's where the old one was and in /workspace
because
On Monday 31 March 2008 13:03:20 Stephan Kulow wrote:
The corporate world should have applications in the core of KDE?
I don't think so.
Maybe not corporate world, but corporate programmers for sure. =)
AFAIK Java has good bindings, too... and I don't see it harming KDE in any
ways.
So here
Howdy,
So we seem to have reached consensus on a policy (enclosed below).
Now I think we should take on the task of pre-approving a couple
of non-C++ languages, thereby giving the green light to anyone
thinking about using one of them = Chicken Lays Egg.
Nominations anyone?
We really need
On 30.03.08 08:19:33, Allen Winter wrote:
Howdy,
So we seem to have reached consensus on a policy (enclosed below).
Now I think we should take on the task of pre-approving a couple
of non-C++ languages, thereby giving the green light to anyone
thinking about using one of them = Chicken
On 30.03.08 17:35:54, Simon Edwards wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 30.03.08 08:19:33, Allen Winter wrote:
I'm not a kdebindings person, but I did try both korundum (ruby) and
I know PyQt/PyKDE for quite some time.
Both have one drawback:
- PyQt/PyKDE are both mostly developed in
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
But even though both bindings are in quite good shape - AFAIK and both
languages should be pre-approved.
+1 for python and ruby.
the fact that they've been around for some years now and apps built with them
work well gives me enough confidence
On Sunday 30 March 2008 15:11:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
But even though both bindings are in quite good shape - AFAIK and both
languages should be pre-approved.
+1 for python and ruby.
+1 for python and ruby
+1 for perl, when the bindings
+1 for PHP ... h in fact no ;-)
But agree with Python and Ruby, and why not Perl (no experience on it)
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Allen Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008 15:11:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
But
12 matches
Mail list logo
