htoolkit-users

[htoolkit-users] Is GTK2 required? and glade question

[Matthew P. <me...@tp...>]

Looking through the archive for this list Vincenzo seemed
to think that GTK2 was needed to compile Port.  Is that
right?  I certainly get heaps of errors from the includes (I'm
using the released version).

I'm currently using Debian stable/testing and would have
to perform a major upgrade to get GTK2 (50 packages upgraded and
70 newly installed), so I just want to know if the upgrade 
will let me compile HToolkit.

Also, when I get it installed I was thinking of writing
a programme to convert glade xml files to GIO source.  Has
anyone else started this or have any suggestions for it?

Thanks much.

-- 

Matthew Parry

-
"There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count?  Well,
there's an end of the story.  God knows there's no going on
with it now." - Sancho Panza.

Re: [htoolkit-users] Is GTK2 required? and glade question

[Nick N. <nic...@in...>]

Alle 05:49, domenica 19 ottobre 2003, Matthew Parry ha scritto:
> Looking through the archive for this list Vincenzo seemed
> to think that GTK2 was needed to compile Port. =A0Is that
> right? =A0I certainly get heaps of errors from the includes (I'm
> using the released version).
>

Yes it's required, and gnome2-devel, too.

> I'm currently using Debian stable/testing and would have
> to perform a major upgrade to get GTK2 (50 packages upgraded and
> 70 newly installed), so I just want to know if the upgrade
> will let me compile HToolkit.

To compile the cvs version even debian unstable won't do, since Krasimir
is using gnome 2.4. To compile the release, sigh, you need gnome 2 and=20
keep also in mind that the way to get through the dependency errors in=20
port is:

while ! make ; do echo; done

Vincenzo

PS: I still wonder if Krasimir is willing to keep on writing this=20
library, since I didn't get replies to recent questions.=20

Re: [htoolkit-users] Is GTK2 required? and glade question

[Krasimir A. <ka2...@ya...>]

   Hi Vincenzo

> PS: I still wonder if Krasimir is willing to keep on
> writing this 
> library, since I didn't get replies to recent
> questions. 

   I am really sorry that I wasn't able to answer you
earlier. After my two weeks holiday I returned to my
office and I found that there was too much work
waiting for me to do.
   I read your proposal about readonly attributes and
I like the idea of separated Readable and Writeable
and ReadWrite types. In your second proposal you try
to work arround the combinatorial explosion with more
complicated type classes. Still I think that this is
not a very good solution. The type checker will accept
the following types:

Attr Readable  w a
Attr Writeable w a
Attr (Readable,Writeable) w a

but will reject this one:

Attr (Writeable,Readable) w a

It would be good if there is a solution which will
accept the last type as well as the following ones:

Attr Initial w a
Attr (Initial,Readable) w a
Attr (Readable,Initial) w a

Unfortunatelly I can't see a way to do this and I
think that the first solution is the simplier one. 

    About the "Progress" type: There is nothing
specific here and the type can be defined as:

data Process = Process

Just like in your proposal.

Cheers,
Krasimir

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com