[Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[Adriaan de Groot]

It was last asked midway through 2000: is there a Qt binding for OCaml? 

Within the KDE community there are several developers who would really be 
interested in working on Qt -- and KDE -- bindings for OCaml, but there's no 
sense in that if they already exist. In particular, there was mention of a 
partially working Qt binding -- perhaps the author of that could give me a 
ring?

What's the point, you ask, of Qt bindings (as opposed to Gtk bindings which 
we all know exist already)? It's probably a religious thing. But I know C++ 
gets me down some days, and I'd like to do something functional and OO at the 
same time. Besides, I think OCaml + Qt is a good choice vs. Clean + w98, but 
that's a whole other flamewar.

-- 
[ade] at home, probably hacking at KPilot
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[Jacques Garrigue]

> It was last asked midway through 2000: is there a Qt binding for OCaml? 
> 
> Within the KDE community there are several developers who would really be 
> interested in working on Qt -- and KDE -- bindings for OCaml, but there's no 
> sense in that if they already exist. In particular, there was mention of a 
> partially working Qt binding -- perhaps the author of that could give me a 
> ring?

I was probably the one.
All I did was an embryo of interface, entirely hand written.
So if you are courageous, go ahead. There will be no duplication.
If you're curious, I can send you my attempt.

> What's the point, you ask, of Qt bindings (as opposed to Gtk
> bindings which we all know exist already)? It's probably a religious
> thing. But I know C++ gets me down some days, and I'd like to do
> something functional and OO at the same time. Besides, I think OCaml
> + Qt is a good choice vs. Clean + w98, but that's a whole other
> flamewar.

I see perfectly the point. The trouble is that C++ is rather hard to
interface to, due to the staticness of its compilation. You may have
to write several wrappers for methods, depending on the position of
the class in the hierarchy... Gtk's dynamic model is easier.
Anyway, Qt is a wonderful toolkit, and having an interface to it would
be nice.

Another interesting work to do is building an interface for Cocoa
(Nextstep by its old name). This might prove much easier, since
Objective C is more dynamic, and a closer match for ocaml's OO.

Cheers,

Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[leary]

Any chance of changing to or adding GPL?

Anyone written/writing a wrapper?

-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] Caml toplevel and readline

[Jacques Garrigue]

It looks like you've got the wrong subject line.
>From the context, you seem to be talking about GNU readline.

From: leary@nwlink.com
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

> Any chance of changing to or adding GPL?

To what? To the caml toplevel? And the bytecode compiler since it is
included? I'm in no position to answer, but if the goal is only to use
GNU readline, then I do not really see the point. There are many
alternatives avilable. Only very few libraries are distributed under
the GPL, and most of them you would not want to include by default in
the ocaml toplevel. (It might be OK to link with them as long as
you do not distribute the result, but I'm no expert in GPL.)

> Anyone written/writing a wrapper?

I don't know of any. Again, GNU readline, while being a useful tool,
is not unique, and making ledit into a library might be more
interesting.

Best regards,

Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[Chris Curtis]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:57:44 +0900
 Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Another interesting work to do is building an interface
> for Cocoa
> (Nextstep by its old name). This might prove much easier,
> since
> Objective C is more dynamic, and a closer match for
> ocaml's OO.

As the proud owner of a new G4 Macintosh running OS X, I
think I'd agree. I've spent a day or two playing in
Objective-C and Cocoa and am quite impressed. In contrast to
C++-torture, ObjC is a marvelous experience - if you really
need to do C. It's still not OCaml. :)  One of the most
interesting aspects of Cocoa/OpenStep is the Interface
Builder ... you can build, prototype, & test the GUI pieces
without any of the background code written. Being relatively
new to both Cocoa and OCaml I have no idea how hard it would
be to build that interface, but I'm sure willing to give it
a go.

--chris
Chris Curtis
Senior Consultant
Satel Corporation
<chris@satel.com>
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[Chris Curtis]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:51:54 -0700
 leary@nwlink.com wrote:
> Any chance of changing to or adding GPL?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't. I agree that readline would be
cool, but in return you give up the ability to use the
toplevel in any non-GPL environment.  GPL is a very big
hammer; let's not go swinging it hastily.

--chris
Chris Curtis
Senior Consultant
Satel Corporation
<chris@satel.com>
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:25:06AM -0600, Chris Curtis wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:51:54 -0700
>  leary@nwlink.com wrote:
> > Any chance of changing to or adding GPL?
> 
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't. I agree that readline would be
> cool, but in return you give up the ability to use the
> toplevel in any non-GPL environment.  GPL is a very big
> hammer; let's not go swinging it hastily.

Unless you dual license like TrollTech finally did for Qt.

This said, i am not asking for a GPLed version of ocaml, please don't take it
so.

That said, i have just checked, the toplevel directory is under the QPL, i
suppose it links also to all the LGPLed part of the ocaml runtime, altough a
quick glance at the corresponding makefile don't show that clearly.

Would a LGPLed version of the toplevel files solve this, i don't know, i just
aksed the debian legal mailing list about this, will forward what they tell me
about it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr