On Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 20:44 Lewis <lswitcher-dev@2rosenthals.com <mailto:lswitcher-dev@2rosenthals.com>> 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.