Re: [TCLCORE] "In the core"

[Marc C. <cul...@gm...>]

I think it would be a very bad idea to not have Tk under TIP control.
Probably that is not what you intended, but you did suggest that packages
in tcl/pkgs need not be under TIP control, and then suggest that Tk could
become a package in tcl/pkgs.

In any case I think the relationship between Tcl and Tk should stay as it
is now.  And I think that has nothing to do with whether the release
versions and schedules of Tcl and Tk continue to be maintained in lock step.

- Marc


On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 8:48 PM Steve Landers <st...@di...>
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Over the years we often hear people ask for something to be “in the core”
> and it’s happening again recently as we start thinking about what comes
> after Tcl 9.0.   But what does “in the core” mean?  I’m interested in
> hearing people’s opinions.
>
> Does it mean “I want this package to be tightly controlled via TIPs” like
> Tcl itself?
>
> Does it mean “I want this package to always be available when Tcl is
> installed?"
>
> Does it mean “I want have confidence that this package can be built and
> installed in a particular Tcl version?"
>
> Does it mean all of the above or something else?
>
> Here’s my take ...
>
> Some packages are foundational and need to be carefully managed and always
> available with a Tcl release: e.g. http (perhaps), tls, thread, perhaps
> others. Does that mean they need to be under TIP control?  Probably not
> albeit we should try not to break the compatibility of packages like http
> and tls.  But what I would greatly appreciate is having a set of packages
> that I could rely upon being present in any Tcl install (unless explicitly
> omitted - such as on memory constrained devices).
>
> We already have a mechanism for this in the tcl/pkgs directory. I would be
> satisfied to see more packages being included in that and perhaps a
> “batteries included” distribution added to the Tcl distribution files.  And
> since we are in parallel talking about decoupling Tk from Tcl we could add
> Tk to tcl/pkgs too.  I realise this might cause heartburn for distro
> maintainers so their input will be vital. And how would we differentiate
> Tcl pkgs from Tk pkgs if Tk itself was a pkg (maybe we don’t need to).  But
> directionally I am comfortable with the notion that “in the core” means “in
> tcl/pkgs” except for features that can’t be distributed as a package.
>
> So what are your thoughts?
>
> -- Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Tcl-Core mailing list
> Tcl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core
>