From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Wed Jan 23 08:56:57 2008 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes From: "J. F. Lemaire" To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] Font selector Library and redraw messages Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:50:25 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) References: <200801222131.p53131@b.maus.de> In-Reply-To: <200801222131.p53131@b.maus.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801230850.25763.jflemaire@skynet.be> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: jflemaire@skynet.be Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by freemint id m0N7uvSB015400 On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Gerhard Stoll wrote: > > please don't write new apps and use these old wdialog calls. > > Why? The font protocol is not younger, than MagiC 4 (WDialog). Yes, I tend to agree with Gerhard here. I took a look at the very limited documentation of the Font protocol in the Thing doc and that doesn't seem as complete as the MagiC extensions (if I'm not mistaken, that's what they really are, Wdialog was just a hack for non-MagiC systems). I mean, if XaAES implements functions such as objc_wedit(), also MagiC-specific functions, and we are encouraged to use them, why should it be any different with the font library? JFL -- Jean-François Lemaire