From: "Lewis" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (account lgrosenthal@2rosenthals.com HELO [192.168.100.23]) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.10) with ESMTPSA id 1170480 for lswitcher-dev@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 22:33:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [lswitcher-dev] lSwitcher-2-92-0-RC_12.wpi To: lSwitcher Developers Mailing List References: Message-ID: <5F753FF9.5020706@2rosenthals.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 22:33:29 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; Warp 4.5; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0 SeaMonkey/2.35 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 09/30/20 10:28 pm, Andy Willis wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 20:44 Lewis > wrote: > > Hi... > > On 09/30/20 07:17 pm, Alfredo Fernández Díaz wrote: > > Hi Gregg, > > > > On 20/09/27 20:33, Gregg Young wrote: > >> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 13:44:59 +0200 Alfredo Fernández Díaz wrote: > > ... > >>>> You have a plan for forcing the update of XWP on all systems and > >>>> preventing the use of Warp Center which we can't fix and you know > >>>> for certain these are the only programs that use this? > >>> > >>> I always have a plan. Phase I is getting to know how all of this works > >>> without looking at the code. Thanks for your help ;) > >> > >> Hi Alfred > >> > >> The real solution would be modifying WinSetDesktopWorkArea in > PMMERGE to > >> check to see if the desktop was already reduced and return an error on > >> any subsequent call except one to restore the desktop to its original > >> size. Of course this isn't going to happen. > > > > I certainly don't count on it happening, but it sounds like a pretty > well > > known thing. Hm. > > > > Indeed. It's just another of those well known PMMERGE quirks (I say > "quirks" > vs "bugs," as there is little to no chance of ever seeing such things > fixed). Of course, there's the DOT patch, so who knows? > > >> We need to remember this is an undocumented call and IBM never intended > >> for others to use it. As such it was not designed for that possibility. > >> Just like it wasn't designed to be called with a less than full width > >> window over the reduced area. > > > > I see. > > > >> For completeness of your planning I can > >> probably hide the stupid desktop titlebar. > > > > Yes, that's probably better. > > > > But I like to know what that "big window" is consuming my screen... :-) > > >>> I imagine the lack of a WarpCenter object in ArcaOS kind of prevents > >>> its use. If the people at ArcaNoae were really determined to do that > >>> I imagine they could also prevent the SmartCenter class from being > >>> registered in the first place in future versions. That would be an > even > >>> safer way to be sure nothing will interfere with what's not even > there. > >>> And I imagine those people would want as many customers as possible to > >>> be reasonably updated. Seriously, how many people are left outside > that > >>> lot (besides me ;)? > >> > >> Probably a lot; OS/2 users aren't exactly a progressive bunch. I > know one > >> that is still using a prehistoric version of lSwitcher;-) > > > > You think that's prehistoric? You should see the WordPerfect macros I'm > > writing lately ;p > > > > :-) > > > Point taken, though (listening to Lewis' input as well -- I used the > warp > > 3 launcher on Warp 4 for ages, hehe). > > > > As OS/2 users, we value our freedom of choice as opposed to whatever the > software publishers *think* is best for us. The LaunchPad caught on > quickly > for many of us, and served us well for some time. Heck, it took me a long > time to switch away from WarpCenter to XCenter. > > >>> Then it's all a matter of documenting things properly (do not do this > >>> and that for such and such reason: just a twist on the current > docs) and > >>> wait for reports of the three people in the entire universe who still > >>> see something break up in their systems. > >> > >> Fortunately they never bother to report anything. Think my breaking > of all > >> the non-English languages in 2.91 and never hearing anything about it. > > > > Hey, *I* reported that. Maybe not in time for 2.91, but... > > > > ... > >>> I'll have a look at that later. I've changed a couple of strings > to stay > >>> closer to the current English menu (lSwitcher settings -> Properties, > >>> and help mnemonics). > >> > >> Am I to read this that I need to change the hotkeys again. Remember the > >> mnemonics and hotkeys must match. > > > > As you probably have realized by now, no; I meant the mnemonics for > "Help" > > on the taskbar menu. So those two letters change on that menu alone, > and > > the rest is untouched. > > > >>> Yeah, I've written better pieces. Have a look at the screenshot. > >>> 'Programs' is a WPS folder: you can make it 'Close' but not 'Quit'. > >>> Maybe the 'Close' menu should be replaced by its first child item, > which > >>> is the only one that works in that situation. > >> > >> I think Quit just needs to be removed it has no advantage over > close and > >> mostly doesn't work. > > > > It seems to work here for *applications* (not WPS folders). I am not > clear > > on the (dis)advantages when closing programs, though, but if there are > > none, why was it there in the first place? > > > > I think Gregg's point is that Quit doesn't really work any better or > worse > than Close. IOW, I've never had a running process refuse to close but was > then able to use Quit. It works, surely, but when it does, Close > should also > work, so there's no real advantage to having the extra option. > > > It may be possible the application treats them differently. I could be > conflating OS's here but an example I've seen it is in Firefox saving or > not saving the tabs... close I _think_ closes them while quit saves them > (that may be backwards). I am not sure if other apps may save or not > depending on which is selected. Hmmm... I hadn't equated the app-specific Quit to the lSwitcher Quit. Perhaps I should have. I'd have to experiment with an older lSwitcher version to see what the difference may be and for which apps. -- Lewis