Re: IUP Accessibility Concerns and Praise

[Ross Berteig <Ross@...>]

Sometime on 9/14/2008, Veli-Pekka T?til? <vtatila@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....
> My question is, why isn't the tree control IUP uses in Win32 
> native and are
> there any work-arounds? Personally, this is an accessibility 
> problem and
> quite a show stopper at that. I've tested some other controls, 
> too, and
> fortunately the basics like edit fields, buttons and message 
> boxes appear to
> work natively, however.

I've been using IUP since version 2.5 or so. My understanding is 
that among the significant changes due for version 3.0 is that 
the tree control will be based on the native Windows control. 
You might peek at the CVS in the IUP 3.0 tree, but do be aware 
that building it yourself from sources has some dependencies on 
its companion projects CD and IM...

Outside of the accessibility issues you raise (which I will 
freely admit that I haven't paid much attention to myself) I 
have found IUP to be quite powerful. My first serious experiment 
with Lua was to build a test harness for an embedded system. It 
was based on about 1500 lines of C implementing bindings to 
parts of the Windows serial port API, and about 1500 lines of 
Lua gluing those bindings to IUP. Coming from some past history 
with TeX's boxes and glue layout style, I had little trouble 
with IUP. Given its natural use of anonymous functions as event 
handlers and natural mapping of controls as nearly table-like 
userdata, it seems to fit well with what I understand to be the 
Lua way.

Ross Berteig                               Ross@CheshireEng.com
Cheshire Engineering Corp.           http://www.CheshireEng.com/