On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 23:40, Max Bowsher 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. > > 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.
If its what I think you are talking about, I disagree. OnAcceptActivation was, IIRC, prompted to allow pages to accept or refuse activation. Refusing == don't display. Accept = display. OnActivation, is called on each activation, which only occurs post-accept checking. OnAcceptActivation can have default behaviour for the common case, reducing duplicate code over a conflated function that both activates and indicates whether it's willing to be activated. Naming wise though, I'd call OnAcceptActivation canBeActivated or some other query-indicating function. Again, all the above is based on recollection.. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://members.aardvark.net.au/lifeless/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part