On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 05:42:42 pm Steve K. wrote:
David, right now, they’re 100% intertwined. That’s the way that _why liked
Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Not only that, it’s actually pretty integral to how Shoes works. It’s
largely C code that exposes a Ruby that’s slightly different…
http://shoesrb.com/manual/Rules.html see “Shoes tricky blocks”
My first impression is, those don’t look terribly tricky, at least as
implementation. self is changed via instance_eval. The “trick” of
drawing seems like an implementation detail, not of the language, but of
whatever classes you use to implement the DSL.
Scrolling down, the only thing I see that looks tricky at all is the
support, and you’d think it would make sense to just use the Unicode
that’s built into 1.9, rather than having an entirely different version
your own. In fact, it seems like this would cause a lot of problems for
I’d want to use in a Shoes app.
If there’s something I’m missing that absolutely has to modify the
C, is there a reason it couldn’t be implemented as an extension and
I don’t mean to imply that the work involved would be trivial. I have
absolutely no idea how much work it would be. I just don’t see any major
blockers here – I really don’t see a good reason why Shoes should carry
own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits,
frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.