Hi Laurent,
Indeed, your revisions to my patch are better than my original... and
with your revision, Steve's extra line of code isn't needed (and it
concerned me that he was picking a particular cursor shape... that
sounded wrong, but I had no clue what would be right). And you cleaned
out the return FALSE path completely, which makes more sense to me. I'm
not really an expert in Windows GUI work, so I was just whacking around
with my patch there, so while I improved it a little, you improved it a lot.
The only quibble I have then, is that when you said you committed my
patch, that opens the door for confusion ... because people saw my patch
on-line. And then, when we coordinate other patches (like the
accelerator keys) there would be surprises in the diffs.
So, I think it would have been better if you mentioned that you had also
made some improvements to my patch (and possibly explained them then).
No lasting harm done, but it might have saved Steve some work. And me
some testing time (first applying and testing Steve's patch, and then
backing that out, applying yours, and testing it).
I'll try to isolate my accelerator key bug fixes and improvements, and
feed them to you, as that will get them into the "real" source faster
than otherwise.
I see Aldo did add me with commit privileges, and it is good to have
several capable of that... sometimes one might be busy like I am now...
I'll try to get CVS set up someday, but maybe not until Jan or Feb...
But if you are willing for the role of bug-fix branch patch coordinator,
I'll be quite content to watch, learn, provide patches to you, and be
available as an extra testing resource re: questionable patches (come
Jan or Feb).
This particular patch is extremely beneficial to everyone, including my
projects, so I can afford the time spent on it, even now while I am
still busy. It is all priorities, of course.
On approximately 11/21/2003 10:13 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Laurent ROCHER:
Hi,
I haven't commit exact Glenn patch.
I have commmit this :
case WM_SETCURSOR:
{
WORD nHitTest = LOWORD( lParam );
if( nHitTest == HTCLIENT ) { // only diddle cursor in client
areas
LPPERLWIN32GUI_USERDATA perlud;
perlud = (LPPERLWIN32GUI_USERDATA) GetWindowLong((HWND)
wParam, GWL_USERDATA);
if( ValidUserData(perlud) && perlud->hCursor != NULL ) {
SetCursor( perlud->hCursor );
return TRUE;
}
}
break;
}
It's return TRUE only if window have a cursor and nHitTest == HTCLIENT.
Otherwise, i call DefWindowProc do his job.
I haven't any more cursor problem.
I think add perlcs.iEventModel = PERLWIN32GUI_EM_BYNAME; in Window create
override default Class cursor.
Can you test with only above code (or CVS code), and say me if it work for
you ?
Laurent.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Linderman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Pick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Win32 GUI Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Win32
GUI Hackers" <perl-win32-gui-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:50 AM
Subject: [perl-win32-gui-users] Re: [perl-win32-gui-hackers] additional fix
for cursors
Excellant. I had noticed the resize cursor persisted until the mouse
pointer got to a "real" sub object inside the main window... annoying
but not (to me) as annoying as not having the resize cursors at all, and
not a problem on windows that are filled with sub objects. But this fix
does the trick.
Thanks, Steve. I've applied it to my version, and I'll be sure to
coordinate with Laurent to get all my fixes into the bug-fix branch.
On approximately 11/20/2003 4:36 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Steve Pick:
In addition to Glenn Linderman's fix for resize cursors this should be
put
in (@)INTERNAL:Create(%OPTIONS) near the top:
perlcs.hCursor = LoadCursor(NULL, IDC_ARROW);
I've put it just below the line that reads
perlcs.iEventModel = PERLWIN32GUI_EM_BYNAME;
This will stop the cursor remaining as a resize handle, hourglass etc
when
moved inside the window.
Steve
--
Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
--
Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
===========================
Like almost everyone, I receive a lot of spam every day, much of it
offering to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It's ridiculous.
-- Bill Gates
And here is why it is ridiculous:
The division that includes Windows posted an operating profit of $2.26
billion on revenue of $2.81 billion.
--from Reuters via
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031113/tech_microsoft_msn_1.html
So that's profit of over 400% of investment... with a bit more
investment in Windows technology, particularly in the area of
reliability, the profit percentage might go down, but so might the bugs
and security problems? Seems like it would be a reasonable tradeoff.
WalMart earnings are 3.4% of investment.
