On 26 July 2011 09:15, Jeremy O'Donoghue <jeremy.odonog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 06:59, Eric Y. Kow <eric....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 00:28:01 +0100, Dave Tapley wrote:
>> > I'm getting the impression that most people are using wxWidgets 2.9 with
>> > wxHaskell, is that a fair assumption?
>>
>> I was surprised by your impression, but now I see why you may feel that
>> way.
>>
>
> I think there's something of a mix. There are probably more wxWidgets 2.8
> users out there, but most people don't install unless something has broken -
> say a new HP version comes out. I started to look at support for 2.9 when
> people started asking for 2.9 features. In particular, I believe that 2.9
> can be compiled as a 64 bit library on newer Macs.
>
>
>> It turns out wxWidgets 2.9 was released early this month, on 2011-07-05.
>> This makes it a bit more urgent for wxhaskell to support both (good
>> thing Jeremy was working so furiously on that)
>>
>
> Hmmm. Nice to hear you say it, but truth be told, I rarely have the time to
> work 'furiously' on wxHaskell :-( Most work happens on intercontinental
> flights (good news: I have another one coming up in a couple of weeks).
>
> We have never had a good story for support of multiple versions, in part
> because wxdirect doesn't support conditional compilation, which means that
> we can't put #ifdefs around version/platform dependent parts of wxC headers.
> In the past we've sort of fudged the issue by officially supporting only one
> version, but I don't think that's a tenable position any longer.
>
> Eric's Haskell version of wx-config will help the 'library' aspect -
> especially if we start to use wxPack on Windows, so we can rely on having
> the libraries built in a specific way. We will need to make it work for 2.9
> and 2.8 though - I think these will need to coexist for a while yet. I
> looked at fixing the existing wx-config source for 2.9 (ISTR it's in C++),
> but looking at the code I lost the will to live. It's rather, err, verbose.
> Haskell would be much better.
>
> I did sort-of warn the list that 2.9 work would likely destabilize the tip
> for a while. Perhaps we should do this work in a branch (I've never tried
> this in Darcs - how easy is it Eric?)
>
> Jeremy
>
Let me know if there's any way I can help.
I'm going to be relying on wxHaskell in the immediate future so I'm keen to
familiarise myself with it because I suspect there are some 2.9 features I
need which aren't implemented in wxHaskell presently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input? Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
wxhaskell-devel mailing list
wxhaskell-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxhaskell-devel
