[SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

Max Bowsher maxb@ukf.net
Sun Jul 20 20:44:00 GMT 2003


Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Gary's current SetupXP patchset calls 2 member functions on page
activation:
>> 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
the
>> 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,
more
>> 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.

Max.

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
further.




More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list