On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 00:28:01 +0100, Dave Tapley wrote:I was surprised by your impression, but now I see why you may feel that
> I'm getting the impression that most people are using wxWidgets 2.9 with
> wxHaskell, is that a fair assumption?
I think there's something of a mix. There are probably more wxWidgets 2.8 users out there, but most people don't install unless something has broken - say a new HP version comes out. I started to look at support for 2.9 when people started asking for 2.9 features. In particular, I believe that 2.9 can be compiled as a 64 bit library on newer Macs.
It turns out wxWidgets 2.9 was released early this month, on 2011-07-05.
This makes it a bit more urgent for wxhaskell to support both (good
thing Jeremy was working so furiously on that)
Hmmm. Nice to hear you say it, but truth be told, I rarely have the time to work 'furiously' on wxHaskell :-( Most work happens on intercontinental flights (good news: I have another one coming up in a couple of weeks).
We have never had a good story for support of multiple versions, in part because wxdirect doesn't support conditional compilation, which means that we can't put #ifdefs around version/platform dependent parts of wxC headers. In the past we've sort of fudged the issue by officially supporting only one version, but I don't think that's a tenable position any longer.
Eric's Haskell version of wx-config will help the 'library' aspect - especially if we start to use wxPack on Windows, so we can rely on having the libraries built in a specific way. We will need to make it work for 2.9 and 2.8 though - I think these will need to coexist for a while yet. I looked at fixing the existing wx-config source for 2.9 (ISTR it's in C++), but looking at the code I lost the will to live. It's rather, err, verbose. Haskell would be much better.
I did sort-of warn the list that 2.9 work would likely destabilize the tip for a while. Perhaps we should do this work in a branch (I've never tried this in Darcs - how easy is it Eric?)