irclark at latveria.castledoom.org
Wed Aug 25 05:21:08 CEST 1999
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:02:30 GMT, Christopher B. Browne
<cbbrowne at news.brownes.org> wrote:
>This of course has the classic problem that
> You can only usefully include things in "Parrot" that are
> expressible in all of the GUI systems, thereby reducing Parrot to a
> Lowest Common Denominator.
>That's not 100% true; there *could* be Parrot features that would be
>ignored on platforms that did not support them. Some danger lies down
As long as they weren't silently ignored, it wouldn't really be dangerous.
The least common denominator for say GTK and motif is actually fairly
What really makes this kind of tool hard to write is the differing
component placement algorithms from one toolkit to the next. You
probably won't easily be able to support all of the options for a
every toolkit. Phil's syntax for parrot suggests a certain type
of geometry manager. Toolkits that won't support that manager
will probably be the most difficult to support with Parrot.
More information about the Python-list