FLTK native in 'D'. Would that be useful?
dm at matthiasm.com
Thu Jul 27 07:50:45 PDT 2006
David Medlock wrote:
> matthiasm wrote:
>> I am one of the co-authors of FLTK. I like 'D' and as a test I have
>> translated parts of FLTK into native 'D' code.
> I have used FLTK before and it was great. A port would perhaps be just
> the base-GUI that D needs.
Thanks for all the kind words in this and other mails.
So it is decided: we will set up an SVN repository entry for D-FLTK on
fltk.org and start porting away. Yes, it will be a full port, not a
wrapper. Anything else would be silly in the long run.
I am using gdc (0.18, IIRC) on OS X and this is how far I got:
I wrote headers for about 70% of the Carbon functions that FLTK uses
plus a few more. However, I would love to automate that. Any
suggestions? Is h2d alive? The same would need to be done for X11 and WIN32.
I ported most of the windowing code, some of the window messaging code
and a little bit of the drawing code. It took a while to get used to
dropping those asterisks everywhere and not to worry about it. After
all, I am new to "D" - and I like it very much.
So, I am able to open windows (Fl_Window, Fl_Group, Fl_Widget support)
and draw rectangles and lines. This is good enough for me to show that
it can be done - so I will do it.
More information to follow. Any help is greatly appreciated.
> PS. Please do not take this as criticism of any kind, but why does FLTK
> use a modified LGPL instead of just using Mozilla License, which
> basically the same thing?
Historical reasons. It was originally LGPL even before Mozilla existed,
then modified LGPL.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-dwt