[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Texmacs-dev] Re: presentation mode bugs

From: Joris van der Hoeven
Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] Re: presentation mode bugs
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:58:06 +0200 (MET DST)

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Stéphane Payrard wrote:

> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 05:31:36PM +0200, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 29 May 2002, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> > 
> > > Also I would like to have some level of compliance of the TBD TeXmacs
> > > widget with the Gtk 2.0 Text API as an incitation for people to use
> > > the TeXmacs widget. This API is at last (and probably at least) as
> > > powerful than the Tk text API I like very much and has been around for
> > > many many years.
> > 
> > By the way, did you consider Qt instead of Gtk?
> > The last six months, each time I talk about porting TeXmacs to Windows,
> > people recommend me to use Qt instead of Gtk. I don't have anything
> > against one or the other, but it might be worth noticing this feedback...
> > 
> First I forgot to say that presentation mode was a good idea. I got
> sick so I will work the fix this evening and tomorrow.
> For KDE, too bad you did not tell it sooner, I thought that as a GNU
> project it was politically correct to use Gnome.  Too bad, I did not ask
> explicitely. Anyway, to benefit form the Linux effect, we should use
> either Gnome or KDE.  The problem is that both enters a new major
> version with lack of language bindings.
> There are no perl binding perl for KDE2 or KDE3.  Apparently there was
> a wealth of tools for perl and gtk but I found them half-baked or
> unsuitable to our goals or too difficult too adapt. Also, I was
> interested by the perl support for glade. But there is many gotchas,
> the big one is that these tools do not yet support  Gtk 2.0. Someone is
> due but no one knows when because the programmer is too busy.
> I am using KDE as desktop, I find it better than Gnome.  As a programmer
> I now have experience with Gtk instead og Qt.
> I would not be against a port to Qt.  But I have read too many docs,
> tried to many tools and it is time to setup and do something concrete
> to kick up my moral.  I got some experience in the process with Gtk
> and with the Perl internals and I have now feel of what I can do with
> them.  Also I got to discuss in many IRC channels and know where and
> from who I can get help.
> I have a bias: for my own purposes, I want to use TeXmacs as a mere
> widget on some toolkit and use it from perl. Another motivation for
> perl is the presence of a real event framework in Perl called POE wich
> is currently lacking from TeXmacs. POE can hook to the event-loop of
> any toolkit.
> Currently I am learning to "parse" the Gtk 2.0 headers to generate
> perl bindings only for the widgets necessary for TeXmacs + the Gtk
> Multiline Text Framework. Also I may be interested to built an API
> that looks more like the Perl::Tk that has trapped most of the perl
> communauty which hardly use Gtk.
> What I am trying to do is already too ambitious for my modest abilities,
> so i am against to consider immediately a cross-language solution
> (using SWIG) and another GUI toolkit. It may be time to do it once
> I will have learnt when completing this first iteration.

No problem, either Gtk or Qt will be fine.
Did you consider porting to Gdk first?

Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>
http://www.texmacs.org: GNU TeXmacs scientific text editor
http://www.math.u-psud.fr/~vdhoeven: personal homepage

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]