[Top][All Lists]

[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

From: William M. Perry
Subject: Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:53:41 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, i386-debian-linux)

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.

I think brady is thinking of the lisp bindings for GTK - this is not the
same as the things that the widget code uses.  Those are implemented in C,
but with the GTK or GNOME builds, there is just glue code in C to call lisp
to create and manage the underlying widgets.

> Bill's comments about geometry managers while true for X-variants and
> Java do not apply to Windows.

Well, writing a simplistic geometry manager for windows would not be
difficult.  All we would really need is a standard horizontal or vertical
box stacking container.

Ceterum censeo vi esse delendam

reply via email to

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