Anonymous user
User talk:Sgeier: Difference between revisions
→TCL & Tk, or TCL/Tk?
(TCL + Tk, or TCL/Tk? Also...Capitalization?) |
|||
Line 1:
==TCL & Tk, or TCL/Tk?==
A question for someone who clearly knows more about TCL than I...Is TCL's graphical combination with Tk normally considered its own language, or is Tk considered a library? If the former, then it makes more sense for GUI TCL snippets to link to [[Tcl]] in their section titles, and list [[Tk]] as a library. If the latter, then it makes sense for GUI TCL snippets to link to [[TCL/Tk]]. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:48, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:I fear the answer to all these questions is "yes" ;-) To me, It's always been "TCL/Tk", that is, I rarely use TCL without Tk. On windows, I use Tclkit because it's handy - one single file, can be wrapped up with a couple hundred k of code of whatever I've been writing and a bunch of libraries into a single standalone kit and still fits on a floppy. On Linux I'll sometimes use Tcl alone, i.e. in situations where I might not want or use a GUI, but the GUI aspect is always pretty close. There is, however, such a thing as tclsh (or tclkitsh) which are non-GUI, and people use them that way. And in a sense Tk stands by itself and is even used in other languages (like Perl/Tk or Python/Tkinter). But in those cases it is perceived more of a library while in TCL's case it's really more of an integral aspect of the language itself. It's a gradual thing, I suppose. But strictly speaking [set var value] is Tcl, [puts $var] is Tcl, and [pack [label .l -text $var]] is Tk, even though it follows Tcl syntax. So in my own little world I'd say GUI examples involving Tcl should be "category Tcl/Tk" (which can the redirect to Tcl since it's really the same thing at some level). But I'm entirely open to alternative suggestions. A thread on comp.lang.tcl might be instructive?
==TCL capitalization==
| |||