Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Qt egg - understanding it
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:04:17 -0300
> Dear Felix, can I access this devel Qt egg from a devel branch?
Sure, you can grab it like this:
svn co http://chicken.kitten-technologies.co.uk/svn/release/4/qt/branches/0xab
>
> I really don't have much expertise with FFI, but I believe I can
> copy/paste/adapt code to support other widgets.
You are free to mess with it to your liking of course, but since I
have to wait for the contributor to finish and document his
enhancements and because I have to test it myself, and because I'm
totally drowning in stuff to do and because I have a cold and am
dead-tired, I might not accept any patches in the near future.
>
> I really consider we could rename (or create new names to maintain
> compatibility with previous versions) procedures relating them to widgets.
>
> Like qt:add and qt:insert: their names do not mention to which widgets they
> relate to. It is easy to check on wiki now, but if the egg expands, it will
> be pretty difficult to establish this relation.
I basically agree. On the other hand, these are generic operations at
least over a set of widget classes.
> Indeed I prefer to directly relate Scheme procedures to C++ widget
> procedures. This would promote more flexibility to the programmer. If he or
> she needs a procedure to abstract some utilities (like qt:insert that copies
> the pointer of a QTextEdit, gets its cursor, and insert code at it), it
> would be implemented on Scheme code, not on C++ one. Probably I'm missing a
> lot of gaps between one language and the other, but that's my humble
> opinion.
IIRC, (and this is funny, because I've never tried the new qt egg and
never found the time to look at it more deeply, so I'm talking about
something that I actually don't have a clue of) the new qt egg allows
invoking arbitrary widget methods, so there is no need to create tons
of wrappers.
Thanks for your interest. Please give it a try and have fun hacking
it. We need good support for a decent GUI toolkit. Feedback is
certainly appreciated, regardless of how slow or fast we can make use
of it.
cheers,
felix