Isaac irclark at
Tue Aug 24 23:21:08 EDT 1999

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:02:30 GMT, Christopher B. Browne 
<cbbrowne at> 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
>that road...

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 mailing list