Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:44:42 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT Com
Subject: Re: [Patch] setup.exe - no skip/keep option buggyness
Message-ID: <20011113024442.GA26712@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT Com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT Com
References: <OE65oDk9X2VFyBUMeEk0000ecac AT hotmail DOT com> <01fe01c16916$a920a350$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BEBC8F6 DOT 3B150BA3 AT yahoo DOT com> <021401c16976$7a591380$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BEFCB8E DOT C0507FBD AT yahoo DOT com> <02c901c16bca$1a7e5fa0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011112224913 DOT GA25415 AT redhat DOT com> <VA DOT 000009d3 DOT 0210da6e AT thesoftwaresource DOT com> <20011113021832 DOT GB26569 AT redhat DOT com> <001501c16bea$26d495b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001501c16bea$26d495b0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:23:14PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>> Here's a really radical idea -- how about throwing out all of the
>windows
>> specific stuff and the .rc file and going with something like fltk
>> ( http://www.fltk.org/ ) instead?
>
>I'll consider patches, but have no intention of doing this myself at
>this point.
>
>The .rc editor I've done work on, sitting in the cygwin-apps cvs
>repository (ah, if only I had time) uses fltk IIRC. It's quite nice.
>However...
>
>IMO our problem is our internal object model, not the toolkit. I'd
>rather get things tidied up one by one, and then reevaluate whats left,
>than change toolkits and hope...

I thought it would be sufficiently hard to implement drop down boxes
with the current scheme that possibly a new approach would make sense.
I'll confess that I've never done drop-downs before.  Maybe they're
really easy.

cgf