This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:55:07 -0500
- Subject: RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> Gary's current SetupXP patchset calls 2 member functions on page
> >> OnActivate (returns void), and OnAcceptActivation (returns bool). I think
> >> this is unnecessarily messy. AFAICS, OnAcceptActivation only exists to
> >> prevent the need to change the return type of the existing OnActivate
> >> function.
> > Yep.
> >> I would very much prefer changing OnActivate to return bool, combining
> >> purpose of both functions. Yes, this does require changes in all derived
> >> classes, but the changes are trivial, and the end result is a cleaner,
> >> logical API.
> > That was exactly my originally-submitted patch. It was refused.
> IIRC, it was refused because it had a load of other changes mixed into it,
> NOT because of the methodology used.
This particular change was refused on its own merits. I reimplemented it
according to Rob's specific demands.
> PS: Please repost your diff, even if you've actually merged very few of my
> suggestions. I'd like to have an up-to-date base from which to proceed
I'll do my best to get something up yet tonight. Again though Max, please keep
in mind that I posted the SetupXP stuff mainly so people could try out the
now-proven-to-not-work-right XP theme feature, not because I had loads of time
to get back on the bigger/resizable chooser stuff.
 Yep, I'm making some headway on the resizability stuff now. It will be
Gary R. Van Sickle