Asp Forum - Spinbox - TCL/Tk 8.4 - Ruby 1.8.2

Bill Welch

1/20/2006 4:07:00 PM

spinbox was not supported in ruby 1.8.2 'cause it uses tcl/tk 8.3 which
does not have spinbox.

I got Tk spinboxes to work via a kludge. I stole a copy of tcl 8.4 and
tk 8.4 from Python 2.4 and laid them onto Ruby 1.8.2.

add the tcl8.4 folder and tk8.4 folders from python into the ruby lib
folder (you can leave the original tcl 8.3 and tk 8.3 alone)

put a copy of the tcl84.dll and tk84.dll from python into the ruby bin
folder.

rename your old copies of tcl83.dll and tk83.dll just in case

rename the new tcl84.dll and tk84.dll to 83 and now tk 8.4 works with
ruby

9 Answers

<Kelly>

7/30/2008 2:41:00 AM

On Jul 29, 7:30 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> But, you, Kelly, just told ME that I don't have the right to post my
> >> comments. Funny! You posted your comment about ME!

> >That isn't what I said, John

> Yes it is. It's precisely what you SUGGESTED.

Nope. It's what you imagined.

> And you aren't a psychiatrist, but you DO remind us of Elaine.

Who's "us", John? You and one of your other personalities?

Chuck Stamford

7/30/2008 4:09:00 AM

"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80e0873d-f950-4b5c-a858-4706672b029b@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 2:15 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:

> Oh brother yourself!

Gee, did I say something to upset you, Chuckie?

Chuck:

I was just mimicing you? Were you upset by something I said?

> I didn't say you didn't PROHIBIT him from making the
> analogy. I said you let it pass without noting it's absurdity.

I know what you said.

Chuck:

Obviously not.

Smelly:

And you're still claiming to be able to read my
mind. How typical of you.

Chuck:

You flatter yourself. I can't think of anything I'd like to do less, even
if I could, than read your mind. My remark to you was to what you didn't
SAY, not what you were thinking or not thinking when you didn't say it.

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You allowed Mark to equate a
Christian school admin to Nazi Germany without comment or complaint. The
lack of reaction speaks for itself.

Chuck Stamford

7/30/2008 4:26:00 AM

"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:777v84557b3lc326c0ntfhihtn0otnhiej@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:48:55 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> <shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
> ? 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:be6cf2d8-53cd-4f3c-a4d7-9e34a2beb090@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jul 28, 11:27 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:22:45 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"<316k...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ? 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>
>>> >On Jul 28, 9:05 pm, "Mark T" <snailmail@letterbox987654321> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Er ... no. Dietrich Bonhoeffer never repented of it according to his
>>> >> own
>>> >> "Letters & Papers From Prison" ( SCM: 1953)
>>>
>>> >I've read differently. I just wish I could remember where...
>>>
>>> Evidently, Kelly, you don't know much (anything ? ) about working
>>> for Christians schools (and that's not a shot)
>>> When you work for a Christian K-12 (I have) you sign a CONTRACT.
>>> The contract says you will abide by certain RULES.
>>>
>>> Mark Tindall SIGNED the contract (or he would not have been hired),
>>> and then FLAGRANTLY VIOLATED his contract.
>>> And was fired.
>>>
>>> I worked for the K-12 that was associated with my seminary.
>>> California Graduate School of Theology, Glendale, CA. Under the
>>> principal, Dr Wm McBirnie.
>>>
>>> I was successful, but the school year ended and I moved on.
>>> I was subsequently recruited to work at several other K-12 Christian
>>> schools. Unfortunately, they all had rules I refused to accept.
>>> No TV, no movies, no alcohol, mandatory chapel, etc.
>>>
>>> I refused to promise to not watch TV or go to movies, or drink
>>> alcohol. (the school was part of the "Reformed" Christian church
>>> movement.)
>>>
>>> They explained, "Oh, everybody watches TV and goes to movies and
>>> drinks alcohol. Just sign the dumb contract!"
>>> I refused to sign something I had no intent to abide by.
>>>
>>> I wasn't hired.
>>
>>Hmmm...fascinating, John. I was talking to Mark about Dietrich
>>Bonhoeffer. You turned what I said (that had absolutely nothing to do
>>with you) into something about you.
>>
>>Your narcissism is controlling you, John.
>>
>>Chuck:
>>
>>LOL! So says the lady who just let Mark equate what he did in that
>>Christian school with what Bonhoeffer did in Nazi Germany withoug batting
>>an
>>eye!
>
> Um hm. Jesus called what Kelly did / does "a double standard". Or
> to be more precise, "using two sets of weights."
>
> It's a dishonest "slight of hand" trick that God DESPISES.
>
> We certainly know who Kelly's and Elaine's hearts belong to, and it
> ain't God!
>
> Both live with RAGE issues; I personally believe that Kelly is
> actually Elaine.
>
> ;-)

Interesting theory. Don't know what you could use it for, though. I mean,
who really cares whether they are or not? Or even if they believe half the
crap they spread. Neither one of them will stand up and legitimately defend
even for their OWN opinions. They don't have anything but insults, so
that's what they use.

I intend to entertain myself with their haplessness until it becomes a bore
(SOON!), then just move on to something that may actually have some value
for someone.

Chuck Stamford

Mike Painter

7/30/2008 4:37:00 AM

<Kelly> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:30 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But, you, Kelly, just told ME that I don't have the right to post
>>>> my comments. Funny! You posted your comment about ME!
>
>>> That isn't what I said, John
>
>> Yes it is. It's precisely what you SUGGESTED.
>
> Nope. It's what you imagined.
>
>> And you aren't a psychiatrist, but you DO remind us of Elaine.
>
> Who's "us", John? You and one of your other personalities?

John has all these friends who lurk and then support his views in what must
be emails or maybe phone calls that they pay for.
NAturally they won't step forward or even have their names revealed, but a
little research as suggested a few names.
Mickey, the mouse in John's pocket.
Bruce Wayne
Clark Kent

Other names are published at a secret website that I will only reveal to
trusted friends and people who send me money. ($10.00 min)

nospam@nospam

7/31/2008 3:36:00 PM

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:44:15 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> We certainly know who Kelly's and Elaine's hearts belong to, and it
>ain't God!
>
> Both live with RAGE issues; I personally believe that Kelly is
>actually Elaine.

My, my, my! You certainly ARE sadly confused.

<Kelly>

7/31/2008 4:26:00 PM

On Jul 31, 8:45 am, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:

> Hey - watch that mouth.

> > I see you are daily about your father's business, and I don't mean
> >your "war hero" daddy (which I doubt) or God. I mean, your daddy the
> >devil.

> You can scream Kelly's dad was no hero all you like, short bus johnnie
> -- but it won't change anything. You are simply jealous that he is,
> and you were a failure in the service.

Actually, I never said he was a "war hero", that was John's
fabrication. I did, however, say that he is a highly decorated,
retired military officer - and that he most definitely is. 7 DFC's
and 27 Air Medals make it so (among other awards).

<Kelly>

8/2/2008 3:06:00 PM

On Aug 2, 12:39 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> "<Kelly>" <316k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:21b1cfce-faac-4a03-a0eb-fd9fa445c401@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 8:45 am, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>
> > Hey - watch that mouth.
> > > I see you are daily about your father's business, and I don't mean
> > >your "war hero" daddy (which I doubt) or God. I mean, your daddy the
> > >devil.
> > You can scream Kelly's dad was no hero all you like, short bus johnnie
> > -- but it won't change anything. You are simply jealous that he is,
> > and you were a failure in the service.
>
> Actually, I never said he was a "war hero", that was John's
> fabrication. I did, however, say that he is a highly decorated,
> retired military officer - and that he most definitely is. 7 DFC's
> and 27 Air Medals make it so (among other awards).
>
> Chuck:
>
> It's a "fabrication" to refer to someone you claim has been cited seven
> times for having, "distinguished himself by heroism or extraordinary
> achievement while participating in aerial flight", and 27 times was cited as
> having "distinguished himself by meritorious achievement while participating
> in aerial flight", as a "war hero"?
>
> Are you just visiting planet earth? Or do you intend to settle here?

The point was that I didn't say he was a war hero, John did, and I was
merely making a distinction between who said what. I guess you just
have trouble following a discussion unless you're the one who's
talking?

<Kelly>

8/3/2008 12:53:00 AM

On Aug 2, 5:34 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:

> Oh please.

"Oh please" what, Chuck?

> NOSPAM: "You can scream Kelly's dad was no hero all you like, short bus
> johnnie"
>
> What about that hateful screed suggests you need to make a distinction
> between what you've said about your dad, and what John had? All you NEEDED
> to do was correct Elaine's error in saying John had denied your father was a
> war hero, when the fact was he called him, according to you, exactly that.
> That was the "point" to be made if there was one.

Since you haven't been around for the three other posts where John
referred to, and claimed that I had referred to, my father as a war
hero, I will just write your comments here as woefully uninformed.

> Here's another: you used that opportunity to take yet another shot at John's
> credibility...

Since you haven't noticed: John has no credibility in Usenet. That
is well known and documented fact.

> a really incoherent one, as it happens,

As it happens, it is only you who is making incoherent statements in
regard to this subject considering you have no idea about the history
on John's "war hero" statements.

> given the service
> awards your father has recieved if what you say is true.

Oh, it's true. Unlike you, I have no need nor desire to lie,
exaggerate, misrepresent and misconstrue in Usenet. And not only is
the number of awards my father has received accurate, at the time he
was awarded the bulk of his DFC's, no one in his branch of the
military had ever been given as many at one time as he was given.

<Kelly>

8/3/2008 6:36:00 AM

On Aug 2, 10:49 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:

> Since you haven't been around for the three other posts where John
> referred to, and claimed that I had referred to, my father as a war
> hero, I will just write your comments here as woefully uninformed.
>
> Chuck:
>
> Blame yourself then, because I'm just going by your remarks.

No - as is your usual m.o., you are making assumptions, jumping to
conclusions, and adding to what was actually said.

> If what you say about your father is even HALF true,

Except it's not "half true", it's completely true.

> your life,

You know nothing of my life - nothing of my accomplishments. Please
stop pretending like you do.

> mine,
> Elaine's, Painter's, and John's
> PALE in comparison,

The only life you know about among the names you mentioned here is
your own. Whether or not those lives "pale in comparison" is
impossible for you to know, Chuck.

> and yet you're willing
> to use is simply as a pawn in some game called winning an argument and
> making John look bad.

No, that wasn't my intent (in that post) at all. My intent was to
correct a misconception.

> You don't see how petty and tawdry that is??

I see how petty and tawdry you are behaving by (once again) trying to
take a non-issue and make it into something.

> What has to happen for you to be able to let go of you're hatred, even just
> long enough to say thanks to someone for thinking of your dad as a war hero,
> regardless of why they're doing it? Why doesn't your hatred allow you to
> see that no matter what a person's motives are, the fact they are
> acknowledging your dad's heroism is worthy of honor?

I don't care what John thinks about my dad's service and I've
certainly said as much before. My comments were directed to Elaine in
order to correct a misconception she had. Kinda like the
misconception you have about what I was trying to explain to Elaine.

> You are an woman obsessed with hate, and I can't tell you how sorry for you
> I am.

"Hate"? Not even close. Hatred is a really stupid emotion, and one
that I rarely, if even engage in - and certainly not in Usenet. Why
is it that insecure little boys like you and John and Rodney and CB
always seem to pull out the hate card when you are shown to be
woefully wrong?

No, the emotion you are actually looking to describe is amusement,
Chuck, definitely not hate.

comp.lang.ruby

Spinbox - TCL/Tk 8.4 - Ruby 1.8.2

Bill Welch

<Kelly>

Chuck Stamford

Chuck Stamford

Mike Painter

nospam@nospam

<Kelly>

<Kelly>

<Kelly>

<Kelly>

x Login to ForumsZone