See TIP 311 [L1 ] for a document meant to be more of a plan, and less of a mere collection of WIBNIs. - DGP
This list is much more concrete than the Tcl 9.0 WishList, the wishes being more that someone should undertake the listed tasks than that someone should figure out how to do X. Also the wish might be directed more from TCT to the community at large (please assist us with getting this done) than the other way around. [the tct is an administrative body - in general, the help provided would be in terms of guiding discussion as to whether such a thing should happen, then helping get the TIP written and submitted... There is, however, the tcl maintainers, whose role is more along the lines of software maintenance of the existing code...]
Really 8.5 too if someone does it!
Tcl
Tk
Outside the core
DKF: BI releases depend on other people to put them together. ActiveTcl's an instance of this, and both tclkit and eTcl are others. But the core bits aren't likely to be done as a BI release directly since that makes things take longer as well as being more difficult for people who want stripped-down releases.
The TkWeb idea is neat, but vanishingly unlikely to happen without contributed code.
Twylite: I'd really like to see TIP #89 (Try/Catch Exception Handling in the Core) finalised and completed. Once the syntax is agreed upon I'm pretty sure it should be possible to have a pure-Tcl implementation (backwards compatible to 8.5 and 8.4) done quite quickly, leaving some time for a C implementation before the alphas/betas.
On the BI side, a lot is possible with a small alternative to the shell/application code and built-in ZIP VFS support; perhaps the latter can be prioritised?
AM: My idea of supporting complex numbers and decimal numbers can be reduced to something simpler: add a command to convert an expression like "1+exp($a/$b)*$x" to "+ 1 [* [exp [/ $a $b]]] $x]". A (scripted or compiled) extension dealing with complex numbers, or arrays of numbers, if you like, can then simply implement procedures +, exp, * suitable for the "number" system and evaluate the resultant command.
LV: Donal, is it safe to say that just because something is on the wish list does not guarantee that feature will make it into 8.6? Traditionally, Tcl hasn't had a development team working on new features. That hasn't changed, right? Normally, if someone wants to see particular new features appear in a version, it would behoove them to participate either contributing time, money, encouragement, bribes, etc.
DKF: Correct. Contributions to make things happen (code/patches are best) will improve the chances, and all the wishes here by me are done with at least a fair chunk of "user of Tcl" perspective. And I bet that zlib support gets done; too many other things depend on it.
LV: Of the above list, the entry least likely to occur in Tcl 8.6 is the batteries included one, IMO. I suspect the tkweb one is another one that is too ambitious.
DKF: Hmm, I'd say that we're marginally more likely to do a BI release than tkweb-in-the-core.
Also, improved documentation for ttk is not something that needs to wait for 8.6 at all.
DKF: There is a standard resize event. It's called <Configure>, and it's been in Tk since the beginning.
peterc: Yes and no. A resize will trigger a <Configure> event, but, not all <Configure> events are resizes. At the moment, the programmer needs to run up their own code to keep track of the size of the window manually and compare it to the current size to determine if this <Configure> is resize related or has been caused by something else. A quick search [L6 ] on Google Groups alone shows how many people ask about this. The nice thing about a <Resize> event would be that adding it wouldn't break any old code still using <Configure> methods.
DKF: Not really. Officially, there are three things that you can get a <Configure> for.
The overhead of getting resizes and repositions mixed up isn't a problem in my experience. In what way does yours vary?
peterc: An example: widget .p is a progress bar which gets resized, which triggers a <Configure>. .p reacts to the <Configure> event with code to redraw the length of the bar in accordance with its new size. This redraw itself causes a <Configure> event. Without a test for size change in some way, that's an unbreakable loop of <Configure>s. Take a look at the resolution suggestions in those Google Groups threads; in nearly all cases they boil down to "store your size beforehand and test to see if it matches with the current size when you get a <Configure>, if it does then bail". Yes, that works... but, it would be nice to remove the need for kludges like that.
DKF: Well that's a messed up progress bar. Changing the length of the bar shouldn't be a reconfiguration; it's just a repaint.
peterc: Not really. Remember, you're measuring something. You need to change the canvas contents when the size of the canvas has changed, otherwise the progress bar's meter is inaccurate. Might I ask, are there other reasons for resistance on <Resize>? Even if you can't see it helping you, is there anything about a <Resize> event which would actively hurt? I gather [L7 ] X even provides a <RequestResize> event just ripe and ready for this sort of use. (The name of the event doesn't worry me, either of <RequestResize> or <Resize> would be just fine.)
DKF: Alas, <ResizeRequest> doesn't do that. In particular, it's not sent to a window when that window changes size; it's sent when the children of that window ask (via the appropriate X11 call) to change size. Purely redrawing a widget will not cause that widget to be resized; if there's a problem, something's being done wrongly.
gasty: I want to see tileqt [L8 ] and tilegtk [L9 ] in the core. Also would be fine to integrate ffidl [L10 ].
ZB When talking about themes: perhaps could be possible to completely dispose of "classic" theme - that isn't aesthetic - and replace it with (quite nice) "keramik"? Actually, why keep the obsolete theme, that (most probably) isn't now used at all?
ZB I forgot: perhaps could be possible to introduce a possibility to read (ttk::)checkbutton's state by "cget"? It's perhaps the only "switch", whose state has to be read exclusively by associated variable.
ZB Maybe could be possible to include (in final) zlib more resistant to available memory limits (I mean: as resistant, as standard Linux' ZIP utility)?
DKF: That's a bit of a vague request. Got a specific request or a patch?
ZB I've described the problem directly on the zlib page (note from 2009-05-04).
jcw - I'd like to add a gentle/feeble +1 vote to still get TIP #351 into 8.6, i.e. adding -stride support to lsearch. It makes it possible to use dict-like lists as efficient key/value data structures where indexing is used more often (dicts are geared entirely towards hashed key access). I.e. same data structure, different uses: indexed access as well keyed access, with merely the cost of shimmering if you need to mix both.