From: Axel S. <A....@ke...> - 2004-12-05 11:05:12
|
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 13:28, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > I'm not really sure about the naming convention though: originally > > I thought gtk2hs was as in "gtk2 for Haskell" (as opposed to gtk+hs), > > but now you seem to be using 2 == "to": is that the intention? > > Well I guess it is ok. :) > > Just to weigh in on the naming convention discussion... :-) > > I reckon the packages should just be called the same as the C packages > (ie without the 2hs suffix), though of course the overall thing is > called gtk2hs. > > So I'd say: gtk, gconf, sourceview, glade. That's fine by me, too. At least we take the chance of other people doing a gtk binding :-) > > For the base package, I'd be inclined to call it 'glib' as it'll contain > just the glib marshaling code and GObject. That is not quite right, though since a) there's will be other stuff in there and b) only a tiny fraction of the glib is bound. But I'm willing to go ahead with "glib" anyway. > Sorry I've not been very active the past two weeks. I've been very busy > with teaching and project work (getting viva'ed). Uh! Good luck. > I made some changes to the Makefile.am for the other packages (glade, > mogul, etc). That was about a week ago, so I'll need to resync it first > (unless you've already got the other packages working and I didn't > notice the cvs commit). Your additions probably are out-of-sync. But if you have the lists of files, I could do it (next weekend). Axel. |