RE: [tcltk-perl] radical rethink of Tk's loading ... (no C)

[Konovalov, V. <vko...@sp...>]

> > What name of final distribution will be? I suggest moving to Tcl-Tk.
> 
> I was thinking of leaving it as "Tcl" (the distro), and it
> includes modules for 'use Tcl' and 'use Tcl::Tk'.  The use of
> Tcl::Tk can and is still independent of those that still want
> to just use Tcl.

I fully agree


> > You mean, once we'll remove Tk.xs it will be not possible 
> to add C code
> > afterwards?
> > But in this case code could be just added to Tcl.xs
> > 
> > Or I did not understood another possible problems with this?
> 
> If we remove Tk.xs, it means we will not be compiling anything
> that requires any direct build connection to Tk.  We rely on
> Tcl to handle that, treating Tk just like any other module we
> would load (as Tk really is now in the Tcl world).  If you
> wanted to add Tk_* C API invocations, that would argue for
> maintaining the separate Tcl-Tk dist.

Indeed, I forgot Tk_* API functions... And probably do not realize another
moments.
Need to think about this.

As a first thought, those Tk_* not directly needed.
As a second thought, Jeff, we must ask you for advice :)

My guess is when those will be needed we may create Tk.xs again, but this is
unlikely to happen...

> Correct, so perhaps I'll just remove the Tcl::Tk C stuff and we
> can reconsider joining the modules at a later date, after we
> have adjusted to Tcl::Tk being pure Perl, and not missing any
> access to Tk_* C APIs.

As long as we still did not used those, I can't imagine how we'll miss them
now. But I am not sure.

> 
> > I vote for moving forward.
> 
> OK, if there are no other objections, I'll do this tomorrow and
> set both Tcl and Tcl-Tk to 0.80 (prep'd for a weekend release).

Fine!
Thanks!

Best regards,
Vadim.