nanogui: Status?
Subject:
RE: Status?
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
8 Sep 1999 07:45:11 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9909080840360.16279-100000@www.linuxhacker.org>
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> I think you all may not get my point. First, I suggest Xlib, not X.
> Xlib is the much smaller subset of X that deals with really low level drawing.
I know. I was talking about Xlib too. We did consider changing the
function names to closer match X, but it might confuse people into
thinking that Nano-X is supposed to be a faithful clone of X, which it
isn't. There are a lot of things which can be done (and are done) more
simply than how X does it.
> The point is that the nano-X api is *already* Xlib compliant, but noone
> realizes it, and that further slows development. I'm not suggesting that
> the API has to remain Xlib compatible, but when you've already got 90% of
> your API compliant, why not?
It isn't anywhere near that close, plus the behaviour is somewhat
different and is likely to become more so as we progress.
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
