Browse thread
OCaml's long range graphical direction?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: OCaml's long range graphical direction? |
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > From: Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> > > That said, we still have 2 gtk+ bindings, at least. > > It seems lablgtk is more complete and may have more active support, due maybe > > because jacques as more time to devote to it than i and pascal cuoq do. > > But still mlgtk seems more easy to understand and to use, needing less > > understanding of the convoluted class and methods system that lablgtk uses. > > Both lack good documentation, well apart from the source that is. > > This convoluted class and method system is intended to make using > lablgtk easier on the long term :-) > In fact, people seem to be coping with it OK. That is, I didn't get > that many questions on it. But certainly, there is a huge deficit in > documentation. I just hack on the examples, but surely a bit more documentation would help. This might be good Consortium work, or even fixable with a volunteer effort. After all of the admonitions against the use of Obj.magic it's a bit disconcerting to count 41 Obj.magic usages in lablgtk. I recall hearing that that will change. What's the plan? -- Brian