A lightweight C++ GUI library welcomes your feedback.

[Jinhao]

Hi,
Nana C++ Library provides a GUI programming with Standard C++ style,
and also includes C++11 features. I would like to hear your feedback.

http://sourceforge.net/p/nanapro/blog

This library welcomes your suggestions, contributions and bug fixes.

Regards!
Jinhao

[Norman J. Goldstein]

{ Please place your reply after the quoted section you're replying to
-mod }

The simplicity of using the library is very attractive.
I was not able to build, unfortunately:

I am running on fedora 18, x86, 32-bit.

I edited nana/include/config.h to indicate a linux system,
and to use the system png installation:

#define USE_NANA_LINUX_X11
// #define NANA_LIBPNG

The following compilation failed:

g++ -g -c ../../source/paint/image.cpp -o ../../source/paint/image.o
-I../../include -I/usr/include/freetype2 -std=c++0x -Wall

../../include/nana/paint/detail/image_png.hpp:148:75: error: no matching
function for call to ‘nana::paint::graphics::bitblt(int&, int&, const
unsigned int&, const unsigned int&, const nana::paint::graphics&, const
int&, const int&)’

This bitblt wants 7 arguments. All the candidates have 2 or 3
arguments. There is a matching prototype in class drawing ... ??

Norm

Post by Jinhao
Hi,
Nana C++ Library provides a GUI programming with Standard C++ style,
and also includes C++11 features. I would like to hear your feedback.
http://sourceforge.net/p/nanapro/blog
This library welcomes your suggestions, contributions and bug fixes.

{ Quoted greetings and signature removed -mod }

[legalize+ (Richard)]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Post by Jinhao
This library welcomes your suggestions, contributions and bug fixes.

How does this library support unit testing?

Are the widgets modeled as pure virtual interfaces that facilitate
mocking?

Or am I once again, like all GUI libraries before, tied to the
concrete widgets and forced to wrap them in interfaces myself?

IMO, any GUI library that does not directly support unit testing is
more of the same and not a step forward.

All the rest is syntactic sugar.