[ltk-user] Stumper

[Kenny Tilton]

Thomas F. Burdick wrote:

>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.
>  
>
OK, makes sense. (Where did they get /that/ wacky namespace syntax?!)

>  
>
>>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.
>  
>
What hook would that be? The one prompted by my whining, viz, to 
dispatch any unrecognized first symbol to a generic handler users can 
specialize?

> At least, that's sufficient for everything Ltk does itself :-)
>
<g> Well that certainly ducks my point: any successful library will get 
pushed in ways the author cannot anticipate. Of course, one can always 
hope for failure. :) That said, it may well be that  the pinhole 
interface (:callback or :data only) data is perfect, and that power 
users can in fact achieve anything just by writing a suitable proc, so I 
am going to shut up for a while.

kt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ltk-user/attachments/20060207/b9a6331d/attachment.html>