Is this intended as a "bug fix" for 1.4.0 or is it a "feature request" to be implemented in 1.5.0?

Some thoughts:

I'm always for removing overhead and for simplifying code but I'm afraid that the removal of the enum values with underscore might break working 1.3.x code that used these enum values as box types [1]. Note that the warnings in the docs like "plastic version of FL_UP_BOX, use FL_PLASTIC_UP_BOX" for enum value _FL_PLASTIC_UP_BOX (with underscore) have been added in 1.4.0, they don't exist in 1.3.x.

These changes might also affect users that add their own schemes but since we don't know such user code [2] I'm also reluctant to introduce code changes that might affect schemes in 1.4.0 (1.4.x).

That said, I support these changes in general but I don't think that the entire "refactoring" is suitable for 1.4.0, it should probably be postponed (1.5.0) although I would like to have a much smaller patch that introduces the new focus box drawing in 1.4.0 (if this could be done in a backwards compatible way).

[1] I also considered replacing the names with underscore with pure macros, like

#define _FL_PLASTIC_UP_BOX FL_PLASTIC_UP_BOX

which might work for 1.3.x backwards compatibility but it might also confuse users and devs. These names would have to be documented as deprecated in 1.4.0 and would have to be removed in 1.5.0, or something like that.

[2] IIRC the TigerVNC project defines an own scheme or at least they're doing something very similar but there may be other projects as well.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: <fltk/fltk/pull/958/c2077086046@github.com>