[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-dat
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date)
19 Apr 2002 13:39:01 -0700
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.5 (bamboo)
Andy Piper <address@hidden> writes:
> 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.
And then you get the laughable situation on MacOS X where mozilla
doesn't use the native widgets, but has a theme attempting to
duplicate their look and feel. Talk about duplicated effort!
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20