Vadim Konovalov wrote: > > > it appears that pure-perl pTk widgets support in Tcl::Tk is quite > > > possible, when trying Tix megawidgets, like in perlTk. > > > > This is one of those things that really argues for a Tcl::pTk for all > > the Perl/Tk compatability stuff. I don't care if it itself requires > > Tcl::Tk, but there is only so much you want to muddle a cleaner > > implementation with. > > [Tcl::Tk] minus [perl/Tk compatibility stuff] equals to > [Tkx], isn't it? > > Or otherwise, if all compatibility moved outside, what will > be in Tcl::Tk?
Ah yes, you are in large part correct. Some motivation for the [Tkx] package was to have the thinnest possible layer without any pTk compatability. If we look at it that way, you could certainly make [Tcl::Tk] more pTk compatible in its base for. Of course, [Tcl::Tk] had 2 "default" modes of operation, one pTk-like, the other not. > > > required: > > > - Tix > > > - pTk.pm file at http://vkonovalov.ru/tcltk-misc/pTk.pm.html > > > - patch below > > > > I for one disapprove of any further use of Tix, as it is quite > > outdated, but if that's what the Perl/Tk folks rely on, then let them > > use it when they have the right configuration. > > very true; > I have problem building Tix on Linux. Really? With Tix 8.4? I rebuilt that build system to be a lot easier than the previous 8.2 version. > Yet, it do not fit into perl/Tk cleanly, because it was > reworked in perl/Tk. Do you know what they changed? If you are only looking to support any general megawidget framework, then I strongly encourage snit::widget. You can include the code directly into the source base, as it is pure Tcl, and use it. You can rename it if you are worried about naming/merge conflicts as well. Jeff
