RE: Common Lisp window standards

["pierce" <pierce@at-mail-server.vitro.com>]

Scott,

David Moon writes:

>I haven't looked at the technical details, but my somewhat ill-informed
opinion >is that although Bedrock and CLIM have some overlap, each also does a
lot that >the other doesn't do. 
>You can also bet the farm that Bedrock will receive a lot more development and
>support resources than CLIM, more than just the extra resources required to
>compensate for the disadvantages of doing it in C++.  I'd like to see the Lisp
>community get some benefit from all that expenditure.

>This suggests to me that a good strategy would be for CLIM 3.0 to be based on
>Bedrock; that is, for the overlapping part of CLIM (probably a little less
than >half) to be removed and replaced with Bedrock, and CLIM to concentrate on
its >unique advantages.  In the long term I think this would be better for
>everybody.

As one of the main CLIM designers and implementors,

Could you please comment on this strategy?

-Jonathan