RE: [gsl-dev] GTK+ v FLTK

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Murray,

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 08:46, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > From: Sander Vesik [mailto:sander_traveling yahoo co uk] 
> > I think it would end up being a third binding for a bunch of 
> > additional reasons
> > aswell. Last I looked inti was much more natural, but this 
> > could be due to bias as
> > to how bindings should work.
> 
> Please please tell me what you mean.

	If OO.o should choose to use gtk+ they would have to provide another
C++ wrapper of it - since they want an UNO binding; due to the way UNO
works[1], and the thread safety code that will be needed - my feeling is
that the only sensible way to do it is by re-wrapping the C underlying
API. 

	IMHO,

		Michael.

[1] - ~needs a new C++ class per UNO aggregate impl.
-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot