Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 20:22 MET
From: email@example.com (Fernando D. Mato Mira)
> I think I'd like to see a scsh-STk merger first..
I was also thinking about that today. That would greatly
enhance the attractiveness of both to lure people away
from tcl and other crap.
STk users have been asking about STk w/o Tk, so it
seems that there forces pushing for such a merger from
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 13:05:04 CST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Noah Friedman)
>Oh, yes! We'd love an X interface, but it hasn't bubbled up to the top
>of my list, so I have to keep hoping someone else will do it.
I haven't looked at the internals of STk, but if it would be easy to adapt,
I'd aim for that vs. starting from scratch, especially if the latter
would just produce yet another gratuitously different set of abstractions.
You could try to integrate scsh into STk, of course (though this may
run a bit slow). Integrating Tk into Scheme48 is something quite
different, and IMO shouldn't be done the way it was done in STk.
STk is very, very interpreter-based. Since the Tk toolkit expects
callback code to be expressed as strings, you have to provide program
source instead of thunks almost everywhere. This means that if you
want to refer to a mutable data structure, you have to insert the name
of a global variable that will (hopefully) contain the structure
(instead of just creating a closure over that structure). It also
means that on every callback, the source code will have to be parsed
It is possible to pass thunks in STk, but in this case, you have to
explicitly take the object's address, and protect it from GC yourself.
Otherwise, the system may crash (gasp). This wouldn't be possible with
Scheme48's copying GC, because addresses would change.
I think there *is* a need to produce another set of abstractions.
What's great about STk is STklos. Of course, there are a lot of
public domain OO packages for scheme, but STk comes with STklos built
in, so there's no need to go out and get another package, and there's
no twisting and hacking needed to get it up and running. And the
:keyword stuff looks quite nice, too. Is there something similar for
I know a mouse \ email@example.com
And he hasn't got a house \ Axel Wienberg, Hinzeweg 9, 21075 Hamburg
I don't know why I call him Gerald \ ja Nein!