On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:25:59 +0200 Alfredo Fernández Díaz wrote:
>
>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?
While I am not 100% sure what Lewis is referring to, I am guessing this was the issue with handling files with multiple extensions (e.g. myfile.200.txt.zip).
>
>....
>>>>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-bo
>okmarks-for-PDF-viewers-directly-to-WPDOS-PostScript-output&p=277731&vie
>wfull=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.
Every choice is another opportunity to introduce a bug or 2:)
>
>>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 have used XCenter pretty much since it was introduced. Same with lSwitcher.
>
>>>>...
>>>>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.
I am removing QUIT. It appears no one is sure how it is different from close in practice. I have never used it. If someone complains I will revisit it. It also appears the difference between them would be application dependent. That is it depends on if the application handles the message or passes it to the default window proc. In my experience Close is the one generally handled by the app. Thanks
Gregg
>
>>>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,
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing
>list <lswitcher-dev@2rosenthals.com>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <lswitcher-dev-off@2rosenthals.com>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
><lswitcher-dev-digest@2rosenthals.com>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
><lswitcher-dev-index@2rosenthals.com>
>Send administrative queries to <lswitcher-dev-request@2rosenthals.com>
>To subscribe (new addresses), E-mail to:
><lswitcher-dev-on@2rosenthals.com> and reply to the confirmation email.
>Web archives are publicly available at: http://lists.2rosenthals.com
>
>This list is hosted by Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC
>P.O. Box 281, Deer Park, NY 11729-0281. Non-
>electronic communications related to content
>contained in these messages should be directed
>to the above address. (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
back to list