Re: [Chicken-users] Qt egg - understanding it

[Sean D'Epagnier]

I would be very interested in this egg if it were dynamically
generated.   Wouldn't this be possible by parsing Qt header files and
generating scheme code to provide the appropriate functions?

Sean

On 8/24/10, Arthur Maciel <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hum... to understand it a little more: why protobj instead of TinyCLOS or
> coops?
> Is there any advantage of that or it was for the ease of use?
>
> Thanks again,
> Arthur
>
> PS.: Tell me if I'm being boring about intense questioning.
>
> 2010/8/24 Felix <address@hidden>
>
>> From: Arthur Maciel <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Qt egg - understanding it
>> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:04:17 -0300
>>
>> > Dear Felix, can I access this devel Qt egg from a devel branch?
>>
>> Sure, you can grab it like this:
>>
>>  svn co
>> http://chicken.kitten-technologies.co.uk/svn/release/4/qt/branches/0xab
>>
>> >
>> > I really don't have much expertise with FFI, but I believe I can
>> > copy/paste/adapt code to support other widgets.
>>
>> You are free to mess with it to your liking of course, but since I
>> have to wait for the contributor to finish and document his
>> enhancements and because I have to test it myself, and because I'm
>> totally drowning in stuff to do and because I have a cold and am
>> dead-tired, I might not accept any patches in the near future.
>>
>> >
>> > I really consider we could rename (or create new names to maintain
>> > compatibility with previous versions) procedures relating them to
>> widgets.
>> >
>> > Like qt:add and qt:insert: their names do not mention to which widgets
>> they
>> > relate to. It is easy to check on wiki now, but if the egg expands, it
>> will
>> > be pretty difficult to establish this relation.
>>
>> I basically agree. On the other hand, these are generic operations at
>> least over a set of widget classes.
>>
>> > Indeed I prefer to directly relate Scheme procedures to C++ widget
>> > procedures. This would promote more flexibility to the programmer. If he
>> or
>> > she needs a procedure to abstract some utilities (like qt:insert that
>> copies
>> > the pointer of a QTextEdit, gets its cursor, and insert code at it), it
>> > would be implemented on Scheme code, not on C++ one. Probably I'm
>> > missing
>> a
>> > lot of gaps between one language and the other, but that's my humble
>> > opinion.
>>
>> IIRC, (and this is funny, because I've never tried the new qt egg and
>> never found the time to look at it more deeply, so I'm talking about
>> something that I actually don't have a clue of) the new qt egg allows
>> invoking arbitrary widget methods, so there is no need to create tons
>> of wrappers.
>>
>> Thanks for your interest. Please give it a try and have fun hacking
>> it. We need good support for a decent GUI toolkit. Feedback is
>> certainly appreciated, regardless of how slow or fast we can make use
>> of it.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> felix
>>
>