No subject

stupid to me, icm the form can be any widget or simular ncurses=20
construction to give a widget idea of it.

Also it make nosense the have a 'gb.form.x11.gtk' without gb.button.x11.gtk
or gb.button.x11.qt, is it ?

The 'gb.qt/gtk' in fact is 'gb.x11.qt/gtk' or 'gb.ncurses'
and gb.x11.qt/gtk.<widget> or gb.ncurses.<widget>

This results in=20
  'gb.<iface>.<widget>'=20
where=20
  '<iface>' is 'x11.qt', 'win.qt', 'x11.gtk' or 'ncurses' and=20
  '<widget>' is 'form', 'button' or 'listbox'.

The gtk component Daniel is making is already gb.x11.gtk.<widget> because
it is in real life a x11.gtk component. Same for the gb.qt component.

If there must be a split in the code for a form it should be a split
between the x11.qt and the qt.form part in such way that the binding
between these is universal and=20

  gb.<x11.qt_interface_qt>.form
  gb.<x11.gtk_interface_qt>.form

can be changed to

  gb.<x11.qt_form-interface>.form
  gb.<x11.gtk_form-interface>.form
  gb.<ncurses_form-interface>.form
  gb.<win.qt_form-interface>.form
  gb.<cygwin.qt_form-interface>.form
  gb.<win_form-interface>.form=20

and from your list the  gb.form.fltk
  gb.<fltk_form-interface>.form=20
          _<widget>-interface>.<widget>

And that is in fact almost the current situation and
>We must make a gb.form component that will be parent of gb.form.qt and
> gb.form.gtk.
is in my view a wrong statement. It works opposite.

|=20
| How about having the gui compenent to use be specified on the command lin=
e=20
| or as an env. var, instead of in the project file?
|=20
| like GAMBAS_USE_GUI=3Dgb.gtk or something.
|=20
|=20

And yes here you can tell to use x11.qt, x11.qt, directfb or ncurses.
This make more sense to me, make the program code in x11.qt and run=20
simple with x11.gtk or win.wx based system.

Note:
By looking in the proposal, I was had some strange feeling about it.
I tried to forsee the impact it could have in the wx, gtk and win case and
found the first problem with the widgets.=20=20
Instead 1 component with a subclass for the widgets every widget was also
divided in at least 2 subclasses for qt and gtk.

The hierarchy gb.qt.widget to gb.widget and gb.widget.qt/gtk/wx/...
does not look clearer to me.
The way it works now with using gb.qt or gb.gtk it is.
Using gb.ncurses, that will be missing some of the widgets from gb.qt,
shows nice in the toolbox, I don't belive your proposal will do the
same as easy it works now.

This is my personal view, I did like the brainstorm about it and share
my conclusion. Sorry if it is boring and to long.
BTW, nice job to make it working with cygwin.

Ron