From octave-graphics-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu Tue Nov 12 14:36:41 1996 Subject: Re: GUI interface for Octave From: Carl Leitner To: "John W. Eaton" cc: octave-graphics at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:36:03 -0500 (EST) > I think it is important to make Octave's user-level code (or even very > much of the internals) independent of any given toolkit. I think this > can be managed by writing an appropriate set of C++ classes, similar > to the way things are done for the new user-defined type system. Okay this seems reasonable, but one question: There are more functions, and certainly more control, availible to the user under tk. These may or may not be available in other packages. Should we only establish a minimum number of GUI tools (such as the ones available in MATLAB) -- which severly limit the user's control? Or should we just implement most of tk and rely on the people who are adding other toolkits to translate approriately. They would then need to be responsible for wat is/isn't in tk to a certain degree (It could handle stuff that isn't implemented in the new toolkit). Sorry this is somewhat unclear. Maybe a reasonable solution is to figure out a reasonably large base requirement of the toolkit, which are very cleary established. Implement these in C++ classes. Then, also add direct access to tk functions. This would encourage the users to write in independent code, but still give the fuller functionailty of tk. > > Do you have any experience working with the event mechanism of Tcl/Tk? > Nope. But I am willing to learn whatever is necc. to bring about the most desrired/sensible solution. That is assuming of course that we can figure that out. :-) > jwe >