> From: Jan Dubois [mailto:j...@activestate.com] > FWIW, I agree with all the points here. I too would prefer > that Tcl::Tk > becomes as much as possible a Perl/Tk drop-in replacement. But since > Vadim disagrees, I don't think there are many options left beyond > forking Tcl::Tk to another namespace. :(
I do not disagree... I also agree with all raised points, but I really like for the forrest of additional files to be optional. But I really think that reasonable compromise is perfectly possible > The obvious namespace for a new/extended/incompatible implementation > for Tk would be Tkx, but that is already taken... It is not clear to > me that the new name has to be under the Tcl:: namespace; a top level > namespace might still be appropriate. Maybe Tk2::, similar to > Apache:: and Apache2::. I like Tk2 :) Regards, Vadim.
