Re: [setup PATCH] Another micropatch heading towardsnext_dialogremoval (1)

[Robert Collins <rbcollins at cygwin dot com>]

On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 21:31, Max Bowsher wrote:

> Actually, no.
> Today, we don't handle the situation because NEXT() is obsolete code that
> fails to actually do anything.

Well, NEXT() in this does attempt to reactivate the current dialog
doesn't it? Gary - any input here?

> After this, we kind of handle the situation, and will be able to handle the
> situation properly one we have full use of exceptions.

It's not a situation that should warrant an exception or failure. All we
need to do is get the correct value from the dialog.

> > It seems better to me to loop (say max 2 times) if such a race occurs,
> > rather than reentering the dialog or exiting.
> 
> Try to actually trigger it. The dialog changes so fast, it is impossible to
> do.
> So, if a user can't trigger this oddness, the only remaining cause is
> Windows oddness, which is good reason to bail out.
> 
> Actually, my preferred change would be to not try to detect this error,
> since I don't think it can occur.

Hmm, I'll defer to Gary on this. If he says it's impossible to occur,
lets simplify the code. If it is possible to occur, lets Do The Right
thing, windows oddness or not.

Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbcollins@cygwin.com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part