Re: Win32libEx -- Richedit, common controls and MDI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian K. Broker
> > This is a very good thing, but and it's not really fair for
> me to simply
> > grab other people's code and incorporate it into "David
> Cuny's" project.
> On
> > the other hand, I don't want people to have to choose, say,
> Matthew Lewis'
> > distribution if they want one set of controls, and mine if they want
> > another.
> I agree. Although I don't think Matt's intent is to have a
> different set of
> controls...
Right. My aim is to take some of the work off of David, to move the lib
forward. And, as anyone who's used my code has probably noticed, a lot of
the wrappers are still pretty rough. That's [partially] by design, since
I'm unfamiliar with the controls, and don't know how they will be used yet.
And, I figure that it would be easier to take stand alone functions and
integrate them properly into existing routines than to rip them out of
something.
> > I think that Win32Lib needs centralized management, to make
> sure that it
> > stays fairly consistant and incorporate various changes and
> bug fixes.
> That
> > doesn't necessarily have to be me. Perhaps it's time to
> stop calling it
> > "David Cuny's", start tracking individual contributions
> better, and put it
> > into someone else's hands?
<snip>
> Matt seems to have a good
> focus on the
> project at the moment but I still feel that it's your 'baby'
> and you should
> at least be involved in such a way that development doesn't get out of
> control.
I wholeheartedly agree (and thanks).
> Some extensions to Win32Lib don't need to be *in*
> win32lib.ew and
> I think that you should be the one to decide what kind of
> stuff need's to be
> in the 'core' so that it doesn't grow up to be too obese. I
> know at one
> time I suggested a few additions that you didn't think would
> fit into the
> lib because they might not be easily implemented across other
> platforms
> (i.e. Linux GUI's). I saw your point and was not bothered
> because the API
> wrappers could *use* Win32Lib but they didn't need to be in
> it. I guess I'd
> like to see a good fundamental set of Windows tools in
> Win32Lib (which is
> already there) and extra fluff be external if possible
> (similar to how much
> of Euphoria's functionality can controlled with a few extra
> 'includes'.)
Just curious, since I don't specifically remember the details of this thread
(and can maybe save some time and energy), but which parts of the API were
you referring to? I agree with you here. In fact, that was my original
intention, but there didn't seem to be a clean way to do a lot of this
without making some changes to stuff like create()/WndProc() etc. Removing
some things to an external file would also make the lib less integrated
(like using setFont() for richedit).
As for central management: I think it's a good idea. I don't think I'm
really up for that over the long term, but I'd be more than happy to work
with whomever takes the job. What I'd like right now is some suggestions on
better wrapping for my code, and help with doing the docs--using Dave's
makedoc.ex to compile the html file. That's going to be a pretty big task.
Matt
PS I've just about got the month calendar wrapped, and I'll probably have
UpDown done in the next couple of days, and then I'll tackle ReBar (it's a
bit more complicated).
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
