On 19 April 2015 08:38:29 BST, "Tobias Fröschle" <tobias.froesc...@t-online.de> wrote: >Norman, > >it probably was a „If we can’t get them all, we probably shouldn’t even >start looking for them“-decision. > >Potential of lurking errors in window definitions is immense and a full >check of the definition in WM_SETUP is maybe a bit ambitious. > >After all, the Tebby team used the QPTR macros that do quite a bit of >sanity check during the compile of a definition (I don’t use them >either). Maybe they considered the whole thing part of the program that >doesn’t need checking by the application ;) > >Tobias > > >> Am 18.04.2015 um 20:44 schrieb Norman Dunbar ><nor...@dunbar-it.co.uk>: >> >> Evening all, >> >> I've spent some free time today examining a problem I've been having >for some time. LibGen (anyone remember that?) when executed displays >the window on screen and works fine until I exit from the program. At >that point, QPC no longer is able to receive the cursor - it passes >behind the QPC window as opposed to over the top of it. >> >> I should point out that QPC 4.0 is running on Mint Linux 17.1, 64 >bit, under Wine. >> >> I know what the problem is, I created the window for LibGen without >an application sub-window menu, so I simply added one in manually, but >I screwed up! I think the major fault was defining the pointer to the >menu items status block to be zero when obviously, that means it's the >same status area as the entire Window's status area. There may well >have been other problems! >> >> I've rolled back my changes and the code works fine, and when I ESC, >QPC stays usable. Hooray. So, WM_SETUP returns no errors, ever. It's >says so in the documentation. Does anyone have any clues as to why this >should be? >> >> It's (obviously) clear that errors should occur in WM_SETUP when >someone like me does something stupid. Even after all these years, I >still find bits appear to be missing from the docs. Pan/Scroll control >block definitions, for example, where are they in the Window Definition >docs? Nowhere (that I can find anyway) although there is mention of >them in the Window Working Definition docs. >> >> I haven't looked at the code, nor am I requesting/demanding/hinting >that someone should do something about it. I'm just wondering why this >quite important feature of WMAN should care so little about the correct >setup of the window definition data. >> >> End of eRant! ;-) >> >> >> Cheers, >> Norm. >> >> >> -- >> Norman Dunbar >> Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd >> >> Registered address: >> 27a Lidget Hill >> Pudsey >> West Yorkshire >> United Kingdom >> LS28 7LG >> >> Company Number: 05132767 >> _______________________________________________ >> QL-Users Mailing List >> http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > >_______________________________________________ >QL-Users Mailing List >http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Morning Tobias, I expect Tony Tebby must have assumed that everyone would use his macros. I bet he never even considered that WM_SETUP could crash an emulator when he wrote it either! Given that different bits of a PE program setup use different macros though, I doubt that there's really a whole lot of sanity checking that could be done. Personally I would have made each chunk of PE structures take a signature word at the start to identify them as a window definition, a loose item, etc. That would help. Maybe. Cheers, Norm. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity and any "auto corrections" that are just wrong! _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
