[ltk-user] Stumper

[Thomas F. Burdick]

On 2/6/06, Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>
> >The internal interface to callbacks is: create-name, add-callback,
> >remove-callback, and callback.  Contrary to what the lambda-list of
> >what the last three would make you believe, callbacks are named by
> >strings, not symbols.  You should get the name for a new callback from
> >create-name.  I'll be fixing that in subversion if Peter doesn't beat
> >me to it.
>
> Oh. Pity. Symbols are Good Things. I see no problem with symbols and
> wish. Why complicate things with unnecessary rules (Thou shalt use strings.)

I wasn't trying to enumerate a rule, just saying what the internal
interface inside Ltk is.  The reason for that is that foo::bar is Tcl
syntax for its namespacing system, so if you want to send an arbitrary
identifier from Lisp to Tcl and back, a string is the easiest to do
right.

> Actually, I think LTk needs to evolve a little in regard to
> communication with wish. I understand the desire to make things easy for
> casual users, but I do not think that should extend to defining "an
> internal interface", with strictures on communication with wish.

Hmm, I really meant more "conventions used within Ltk" rather than
"internal interface".  FWIW, the communication with wish could use an
overhaul to make it a little more robust.  That said, there shouldn't
be anything you can't do with format-wish, read-data, senddata on the
Tk side, and the new hook Peter put into the event-handling mechanism.
 At least, that's sufficient for everything Ltk does itself :-)