Re: [gtk-list] Re: Objective-C binding

[Toshio Kuratomi <badger prtr-13 ucsc edu>]

On Wed, 04 Mar, 1998 at 07:20:33PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit set free these words:
> 
> The FoundationKit specification (with its free implementations gstep-base and libFoundation) is more like a libstdc++ or libg++; a foundation of basic classes like lists, sets, etc. pp. (only more reasonable than lib*++ ;-). I doubt that you can write a reasonable big ObjC application without using that kind of classes, but then, obgtk's users are free to reinvent the wheel.
> 
> Anyway, libFoundation and gstep-base can be used without GNUstep. You don't have to open any other can. Furthermore, both libFoundation and gstep-base are quite complete and stable.
> 
> Once again, think of FoundationKit as something really unrelated to GNUstep; then you're free to reject it due to its size, but please not for its use in GNUstep.
> 
Looked at this way, the concept sounds quite interesting.  what's in
libFoundation and gstep-base and are they packaged seperately from gnustep
(excuse my ignorance, I don't know how the gnustep project is setup at all.)

I don't know if introducing another dependency into the code is desirable,
though if it can be avoided.  You hint that FoundationKit might be somewhat
large in size.  How large?  How much of it isn't strictly necessary to having
gtk-ObjC bindings?

I'd definitely like to see what you come up with, but the present
bindings and yours might really be filling two different niches.

-Toshio
-- 
badger  \"The Difference between today and yesterday is not so much what has
@prtr-13 \ changed between then and now as what I hope to change by tomorrow."
.ucsc.edu  \~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~