[mcclim-devel] incremental redisplay and with-first-quadrant-coordinates

[Duncan Rose]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 01:37  pm, Paolo Amoroso wrote:

> Robert Strandh <strandh at labri.fr> writes:
>
>> Duncan Rose writes:
> [...]
>>> Do we need to take the vendor CLIMs into account at all?
>>
>> I seriously doubt it.  As far as the vendors are concerned, CLIM is
>> dead.
>
> What about users of commercial CLIM implementations?  On the other
> hand, if those users are sufficiently interested in CLIM, they should
> probably put some pressure on their vendors.
>
> Robert, Duncan (and others): are you suggesting that McCLIM should
> become a new CLIM standard[*]?
>

Personally I'd like to see McCLIM in a *state* where it could be used 
as a
base for a new standard. An actual new standard is perhaps less 
important
to me. OTOH a couple of extra chapters in the existing spec and some of
the confusing or contradictory stuff being rewritten would be very cool.

I think in general the ideas behind CLIM stand up pretty well in the 
face
of 'modern' windowing systems. The main lack as I see it in CLIM is
support for i18n, particularly bidi text layout and multi-key input
sequences. Perhaps more thought needs to be put into embedding frames
too (DUIM is at a point where windows components can be embedded in DUIM
frames; I don't see why CLIM couldn't be somewhere similar). (In fact
Apple (or NeXT) seem to have copied silica wholesale as the windowing
parts of Cocoa.)

All the rest (transparent window backgrounds? Arbitrarily shaped 
windows?)
seem like eye candy to me. I care about them not ;-) (but would still 
like
to see them supported. They may be already, if enough hoops are jumped
through. Certainly I don't see any of them being *against* the 
specification).

Whilst the CLIM presentation paradigm isn't common I really don't see
that it prevents anybody writing a CLIM app that fits in nicely with
those other windowing systems (we might need to do something on 
selections.
But even this I feel isn't a large divergence from the spec)

Perhaps I'm missing something fundamental regarding the facilities 
offered
by other systems, I just can't think of much that needs adding to CLIM.

I think we'll just need an additional chapter or two rather than a new
spec. - this is the benefit of starting with a 'mathematically complete'
specification in the first place

-Duncan


>
> Paolo
>
> [*] For appropriate--and sufficiently fuzzy--values of "standard".
> -- 
> Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
> _______________________________________________
> mcclim-devel mailing list
> mcclim-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
>