From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Alfredo_Fern=c3=a1ndez_D=c3=adaz?=" <lswitcher-dev@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: [lswitcher-dev] lSwitcher-2-92-0-RC_12.wpi
To: lSwitcher Developers Mailing List <lswitcher-dev@2rosenthals.com>
References: <list-1140418@2rosenthals.com> <list-1150094@2rosenthals.com>
 <list-1150194@2rosenthals.com> <list-1150401@2rosenthals.com>
 <list-1150786@2rosenthals.com> <list-1170345@2rosenthals.com>
 <list-1170455@2rosenthals.com>
Message-ID: <5F761F37.4010707@yahoo.es>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:25:59 +0200
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: <list-1170455@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 3974

Hi,

On 20/10/01 03:44, 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:
<snip>
>>> 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?

Care to remind me what the DOT thing was?

...
>>> 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... :-)

:-)

>>>> [...]
>>>> 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
>>
>
> :-)

No kidding (:
https://www.wpuniverse.com/vb/showthread.php?39748-Feasibility-adding-bookmarks-for-PDF-viewers-directly-to-WPDOS-PostScript-output&p=277731&viewfull=1#post277731

>> 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.

I hear you. Actually what I was thinking about was how to make more programs 
of this kind accommodate each other better, thus widening user freedom of 
choice. Unfortunately, just like in real life, sometimes that may work better 
by restraining a few choices along the way.

> 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.

I liked WarpCenter (sort of), but as soon as XCenter capabilities made it 
capable of perfectly mimicking the original, it was doomed. Launchpad use 
survived much longer on my systems.

>>> ...
>>> 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.

Except for the FireFox Close vs. Quit Andy pointed out, and possibly other 
applications sensitive to this. However, I am not big on closing 'sensitive' 
applications like this from the switcher -- I know I would always be doing the 
wrong 'close'.

Checking 2.61 it seems like it was always there (SC_CLOSE vs. WM_QUIT). Any 
further technical considerations on this are up to Gregg, though -- I just 
can't dig enough into this within a reasonable time-frame as of now.

>> Having seen r13b, I think I concur with Lewis: I'd prefer a single 'Close'
>> lSwitcher menu entry for folders in the taskbar (since only that makes
>> sense), but for programs, and if possible, I'd rather have a 'Close' submenu
>> with the different methods. I think Dos/Sigkill look a bit daunting, not
>> being normal words and that, and it would be better if at least
>> non-tech-savvy people can tell right away they're just modes of closing a task.
>
> Exactly.

:-)

Cheers,