Re: Making guile-gtk-1.2 stable?

[Kevin Ryde]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
> I'm not really a stakeholder here -- it would certainly be an asset,
> though... for guile-gobject (which perhaps should be renamed
> guile-gtk-2.0, for clarity?

Only if it's going to be the guile-gtk going forwards I guess.  The
alternative is to copy guile-gtk-1.2 across to be that.  (Which would
involve work, but probably not too much pain.)

> or should the gtk bindings split from the
> gobject bindings at some point?

I've been using the guile-gtk-1.2 branch because it worked and because
I was playing with the gdk level stuff.  I don't actually mind whether
it's this stuff or the -gobject stuff which is the basis for going
forward, though it seems slightly silly to keep both.

The only thing I'm not especially keen on is the goops in -gobject.
Maybe I only need to shown the light, but I'd probably prefer to use
it with just the plain functions (which is already possible I guess,
but I mean without loading up all the goops bits).