FLTK native in 'D'. Would that be useful?

[MatthiasM]

David Medlock wrote:
> matthiasm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am one of the co-authors of FLTK. I like 'D' and as a test I have 
>> manually
>> 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.

Matthias