Remove canvas shapes by tag?

[Ryan]

Thank you all for getting me over this issue!
I used the techniques you prescribed with great success.

(format-wish "~a delete {~a}" (widget-path canvas) tag)

And set the tag attribute like so to attach a "line" attribute to lines 
(so other shapes are preserved on deletion).
(itemconfigure canvas line-instance "tag" "line")

I'm working on a 2D diagramming tool for light personal use.


On 10/13/2016 12:44 PM, Matthew Stickney wrote:
> Sorry, was going from memory and mis-copied it. You want
> LTK:WIDGET-PATH instead.
>
> Ltk is really good about being easy to extend, which is useful for
> things like starkits or tcl extensions that don't really belong in a
> tk binding. I've found that the major drawback to Tk is that it's
> tricky to build new parts out of existing widgets[0]. It's got the
> most straightforward and least bizarre widget API I've seen in any GUI
> toolkit, though -- worthy of emulation, IMO.
>
> [0] Technically, Tk widgets don't really exhibit "closure" -- you
> can't build a widget out of other widgets, without resorting to one of
> the object-based shims around Tk. There is some information about
> creating so-called "megawidgets", but it's not as simple as you would
> hope.
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Ryan <pixeloutlaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm I seem to be missing
>>
>> (wish-pathname ...)
>>
>> Is it a standard LTk function?
>> Thanks for confirming that LTk is indeed missing the "delete by tag"
>> command.
>> The format-wish is a nice little option until people can officially add the
>> newest features.
>> I really like Tk conceptually. It is nice to have a universal GUI shell that
>> is language agnostic and not browser based.
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2016 02:03 PM, Matthew Stickney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Stickney <mtstickney at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> then open up the tk source and search around for strings that could be
>>>> that
>>>> command
>>> Sorry, I mean the LTK source. Having to read the tk source itself
>>> would be considerably more involved.
>>>
>>