RE: Ease of use (was Call for constructive user criticism.)
- From: "Fox, Kevin M" <KMFox mail bhi-erc com>
- To: "'mawarkus t-online de'" <mawarkus t-online de>, gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: RE: Ease of use (was Call for constructive user criticism.)
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:12:42 -0700
You have a point. Well, for gnome 2.0 programs, we can say "use libglade"
and do the 2 interfaces. Then whoever wants their program to be gnome 2.0
complient can use the new method. Older gnome 1.0 programs will still work,
but just wont be able to switch modes.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 3:38 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Ease of use (was Call for constructive user criticism.)
> +++ Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 02:57:43PM -0700 +++
> Fox, Kevin M e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> > Actually, if libglade were to be used for all programs, you
> would make your
> > 2 interfaces with glade (much easier then hand coding by
> the way) and have a
> > simple if else statement in your main function to switch
> between the two (or
> > more) glade intervaces. Using libglade would make the
> program 100x smaller,
> > more flexable, and easier to code.
> But it would still mean redoing the interfaces of all the existing
> programs with Glade.
> Have you got the manpower to do it? Can you assure that libglade-built
> interfaces have got all the necessary features?
> Speaking for me, not for Microsoft.
> Mainly because I don't work for Microsoft.
> FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at
> To unsubscribe: mail
> firstname.lastname@example.org with
> "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
] [Thread Prev