Well, well, well. Should I use the "great minds think alike" line?
Or is this just so obviously a good idea that we both have thought of it?
Clearly there are some well-defined events that need to have particular
handling applied, and Win32::GUI needs to default to doing that handling.
Clearly any event for which a handler exists, it would be nice to be
able to override or supplement the default handling. I suppose for full
generality, the hooks should define whether they are "pre-default
handling" hooks, or "post-default handling" hooks, but it seems that
most things in Windows are set up so that only "pre-default handling
hooks" are needed. But I'm no Windows expert, so correct me here if I'm
wrong.
One of my most desired features for the NEM, other than getting the bugs
and incompletenesses out of it, is the ability to obtain a reference to
the "current handler", so that a new handler could be written to wrap
the "current handler", or to substitute for it for a while, and then put
it back. Without that, NEM is not very extensible.
And the idea of defining the events for which the user can define hooks,
which is the gist of your message, is clearly the way to go for full
capability. It is not clear to me if such a handler should be placed in
Win32::GUI::Dialog/DoEvents/etc., or in the MessageLoops code, probably
the latter, but there are so many of them, and I don't even understand
fully why there are so many of them. So the former seems like a more
central location!
When I was contemplating finishing or replacing Win32::GUI since Aldo
was "incognito" for an extended period, I considered discarding the
MessageLoops stuff entirely, putting the hooks you suggest into Dialog,
and discovering what else I didn't know, and how disastrous it would
have been to do so... but I decided the shortest path to a working
project would be to fix a few bugs in the old event model, and use it,
so that is what I am doing.
BTW, I have seen/have a program that use PeekMessage extensively, as the
primary GUI interface. It does function, if properly manipulated. Said
program was not authored by me, however, so I don't feel I can
distribute it... but I could give you a pointer to the author if you
wish to ask him about it.
On approximately 12/4/2003 4:25 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Steve Pick:
Hello,
Here's a nice idea:
use Win32::GUI;
my $win = new Win32::GUI::Window(
-name => "Test",
-left => 100,
-top => 100,
-width => 100,
-height => 100,
-onResize => \&Test_resize
);
# Whenever we get WM_SETCURSOR, call perl sub setcursor with message
parameters.
$win->Hook(WM_SETCURSOR, \&setcursor);
# ... some code ...
# Reassign WM_SETCURSOR to go elsewhere
$win->Hook(WM_SETCURSOR, \&changecursorback);
# ... some more code ...
# Now reset WM_SETCURSOR to trigger DefWndProc().
$win->UnHook(WM_SETCURSOR);
Since we can never implement all the events the user might wish to catch in
the NEM, this method lets the user define when they want to catch a specific
event and handle it in Perl, and when they want to finish their capture.
This beats the hell out of using GetMessage (non-blocking, faster, simpler)
and PeekMessage (peekmessage always seems to return nothing anyway).
What do you think? Should I implement this?
Steve.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Perl-Win32-GUI-Hackers mailing list
Perl-Win32-GUI-Hackers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-win32-gui-hackers
--
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.
