This is a slightly tangental, but while were on the subject of implmenting differnt GUI toolkits, it seems like a perfect time for me to mention that having scheme access to the GUI toolkit is a definate good thing. For example, if the gui was re-written using GTK, gtk bindings are available for many versions of scheme, and thus your texmacs applications would be able to do direct GUI things, not just the compiled texmacs app itself. This would allow a new generation of extentions.
Then again, I probably shouldn't complain about things too much, seeing that i'm not willing to implement it myself. :) For anyone interested, my texmacs useage has become much more mundane lately, as I'm writing documents, and not working on things like "the texmacs filemanager" anymore. Corey On 12/15/06, Josef Weidendorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 21:20, Henri Lesourd wrote: > Nevertheless, I would like to underline one point : the experience > of the native Windows port showed us that for specific technical > parts of TeXmacs like these, if the code becomes unmaintained > at some point, it is difficult to find a new maintainer, because > the project in itself is not sufficiently general : you need to find > one guy which is **in the same time** an OS-specific-things > hacker and a TeXmacs fan. That's hard to find. Wouldn't it be worth in the long run to implement the TeXmacs widgets via a plattform independent GUI toolkit which is available for X11, Windows, and OS-X? Candidates are eg. Qt4 or GTK. Of course, this way you need Qt/GTK hackers around, but you do not need X11/Cocoa/Windows gurus. Josef _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
-- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y)))
_______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
