RE: question about Ptk new version

> >again, all 8.5 things, with *all* Tcl/Tk widgets, are 
> readily available
> >for Perl with a help of Tcl::Tk, and Tkx, CPAN modules.
> 
> Of course they are - and as you keep pointing that out I am sure 
> ALL the readers of the perl/Tk list know that.
> But they persist in reading a list DEDICATED to the perl/Tk way,
> and I still try and support them as time permits, as do other 
> regular posters here.

Few years ago, when I needed Unicode in perl/Tk, no-one was able to support
this, and, later then, someone on this list pointed me Tcl::Tk, where
Unicode was available at that time.
So, it was very unfortunate for me to not knowing of other way round later.

Ok, if you see this off-topic, I'll try be more on-the-topic.

But in this particular case I was noticing of *existing* possibility of
using Tk 8.5 and Tile and all that.

> 
> If Tcl::Tk is so much better why are you still reading this list?

I'm not prohibited doing that, am I?

> 
> >
> >Complexity of Perl/Tk isn't an advantage.
> 
> _I_ find OO style of perl/Tk an advantage - which is why I 
> wrote it that 
> way. 

Tcl::Tk uses sane OO syntax, BTW

> 
> If _I_ was going to change toolkits I would probably move to 
> Gtk rather 
> than Tcl::Tk

I read that list also :):)

-++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server.  If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe ptk" to [email protected]