[lazarus] Maybe.... gtk2
nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de
Fri Dec 13 14:07:41 EST 2002
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:27:20 +0100 (CET)
matooo at email.si wrote:
> Wouldn't it be simpler to retain names. Probably just some of my strange
> thoughts. Almoust any gcc software that respects changes can be compiled
FYI: For applications you just set the widget type from gtk to gtk2. And the
gtk2-interface is always compiled via the IDE or the Makefiles. So, we don't
need to make the hidden compilation very comfortable.
> Wouldn't it be easyer to take same logic and have gtk1 or gtk2 compile
> destination, (qt, win, gtk, gtk2). Overloading objects would demand
> overloaded and corrected components, while retaining would demand only to
> respect old definitions with adding or correcting new ones.
What do you mean with "Overloading objects would demand overloaded and
corrected components"? Can you give an example?
Many differences will simply be made with compiler directives. But some gtk2
features allows to replace whole functions. And these functions can be
> > > Also I just finished fam implementation and basic object. Component
> > will
> > > be finished today. If that one is planned for lazarus I can upload it
> > > somewhere otherwise it will appear on my server after I find a time to
> > set
> > > him up again
> > Normally, visual components go into lazarus and non visual components
> > go
> > into fpc.
> ok, if fpc branch needs it, I have it :-)
I hope the fpc-team reads this thread.
More information about the Lazarus