[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-da
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date)
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:28:17 -0700
At 12:01 PM 4/19/02 -0700, Brady Montz wrote:
That's the impression I'd gotten. I haven't yet had the chance to take
a look at it.
Am I mistaken that the differences between gtk and other native
graphics code is exposed to lisp? That is, the lisp widget library
knows about them?
In general this is incorrect, the same lisp code works on Windows, GTK,
Motif and Athena. However, its fair to say that some things are more fully
implemented on some platforms than others.
Bill's comments about geometry managers while true for X-variants and Java
do not apply to Windows. So I am pessmistic about attempts to push more of
the work out to the widgets. I certainly do not believe that we should
start using GTK etc on windows to solve this problem. I think Netscape's 6
use of non-windows widgets is a disaster since it makes the application a)
very bloated and b) not look like a windows app.
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20