[ltk-user] Socket problem....

[Kenny Tilton]

Kenny Tilton wrote:

> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/06, Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Peter Herth wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>> I actually do withdraw windows as soon as they are created to fill
>>>> them in the background. So that works with all my programs.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Good to know, thx. Yeah, worked for me, too, until I did Something.
>>> Programming! :)
>>>   
>>
>>
>> This is purely subjective (I haven't written up test cases to find out
>> for sure), but it seems like the fastest way to do things is to
>> withdraw the toplevel, pack from innermost to outermost, then
>> normalize it.
>>
> Yep. And if I want to get diabolical I can, instead of sending TK 
> commands as they come up during a propagation, I can save them up and, 
> at the end of any given propagation (as the ultimate step in 
> unfinished-business handling) sort them and write them all to the 
> stream in one blast.
>
> Of course this means Cells needs to accept before, after, around, 
> whatever callbacks to be kicked off after every propagation. Maybe 
> during propagation there is something in the Cells API to register an 
> "after" callback. Possibly one-time or permanent, not that I see a big 
> cost to registering on each propagation.
>
> This does not seem kludgy to me. One thing Cells does is neatly 
> organize the multitudinous state changes arising from some initial 
> state change. OTOH, as I am discovering with Tk, sometimes this 
> well-ordered system has to deal with less well-ordered systems. Tk is 
> a little fragile when it comes to things like:
>
>    set .w1 "boo"
>   <create a listbox with textvariable .w1 and items including "boo">
>
> No dice. The order must be reversed or the list does not see the value 
> .w1. ie, The usual problem with imperative vs. declarative.
>
> So a reasonable extension to Cells is a mechanism for talking to 
> external systems sensitive to the ordering of perturbations. But I 
> will wait until Tk proves it needs this or until some other use case 
> comes along. 


I am such an idiot (ROFL):

(defmethod md-awaken :after ((self c-panedwindow))
  (with-integrity (:panedwindow :finalize self)
    (loop for k in (^kids)
          do (tk-send self "~a add ~a" (^path) (path k)))))

The :finalize option doing exactly what I just described, and having 
been created exactly for Tk.

Identical minds think alike?

I am such an idiot. :)

kenny

ps. Is this list moderated? Huge delays sometimes in posting.

k