RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
[snip] > > I cannot think of one. It exists soley to give OnActivate a "default return > > code". It *can't* be called anywhere else, since in the general case, > > OnAcceptActivation won't know if it needs to refuse activation until after > > OnAccept is called. > > Hmm. My intention when I sugg

RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] > Gary, I don't think the clarity of setup's code is trivial. > And, I can't imagine that any project would accept a monolithic patch > encompassing multiple concepts. > I'm not referring to multiple concepts, I'm referring to this OnAcceptActivation() thing. Li

RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> Gary R. Van Sickle 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

Re: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 06:44, Max Bowsher wrote: > Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > >On , Max Bowsher wrote: > >> 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 tr

RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 04:17, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > Unless there will ever be a need to ask a page whether > > it would take activation in the future, but not activate it immediately, > > even if it is possible to do so, I think the 2 calls should be merged. Will > > there ever be such a ca

improving setup design as we go

2003-07-20 Thread Robert Collins
Responding out of thread, as I want to make a generic point about what API changes in setup will be approved, and what won't be, and the process I use internally when reviewing one - like the OnActivate change some time ago. setup has an improving design. We are slowly separating processing from u

Re: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Max Bowsher
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> Robert Collins wrote: >>> 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. A

Re: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Max Bowsher
Gary R. Van Sickle 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 t

Re: [SetupXP] PropertyPage::OnInit

2003-07-20 Thread Max Bowsher
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> I would like to propose NOT moving the global font settings into >> PropertyPage::OnInit, and consequently not requiring "Call base class >> OnInit()" changes in all derived classes. >> > > Don't quite follow the former, agree with the latter if there's another way to >

Re: [SetupXP] Minor res.rc changes.

2003-07-20 Thread Max Bowsher
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >>> * res.rc >>> (IDD_SPLASH): Move icon. >> >> Actually, you just changed the width. > > Indeed. Not sure what happened there. Remember that those entries are a bit > old, I may have un-changed things in the interim. OK, but please work out what you actually want to ch

Re: SetupXP

2003-07-20 Thread Max Bowsher
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >>> First, please drop >>> "-r HEAD" from your diff command. All that accomplishes is to make the >>> generated patch *revert all changes to HEAD that you haven't merged into >>> your local copy*. >>> >> >> Ouch, ok, important safety tip. I thought I had gotten all the >>

RE: [SetupXP] PropertyPage::OnInit

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> I would like to propose NOT moving the global font settings into > PropertyPage::OnInit, and consequently not requiring "Call base class > OnInit()" changes in all derived classes. > Don't quite follow the former, agree with the latter if there's another way to do it. The pages themselves are c

RE: [SetupXP] Minor res.rc changes.

2003-07-20 Thread Elfyn McBratney
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > | (IDD_DESKTOP): Move controls. Add Cygwin icon. > > > > Actually you moved, not added, the Cygwin icon. > > > > Also, though I really like the idea of a "Finished" page, I'm not entirely > > convinces that it should be merged with the "Create Ic

RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> I cannot think of one. It exists soley to give OnActivate a "default return > code". It *can't* be called anywhere else, since in the general case, > OnAcceptActivation won't know if it needs to refuse activation until after > OnAccept is called. OnActivate -- Gary R. Van Sickle B

RE: [SetupXP] Minor res.rc changes.

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> | * res.rc > | (IDD_SPLASH): Move icon. > > Actually, you just changed the width. Indeed. Not sure what happened there. Remember that those entries are a bit old, I may have un-changed things in the interim. > Widths of 21 and 20 are used at > various places in res.rc. I don't know why. If yo

RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> Robert Collins wrote: > > 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

Re: Pending package status (20 Jul 2003)

2003-07-20 Thread Elfyn McBratney
[ Please send mail to list instead of mailing moi directly ] On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Daniel Reed wrote: > On 2003-07-20T00:48+0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > ) @ TCM > ) > ) date : 27 Jan 2003 > ) version: 2.20-1 > ) status : updated packages are available for review > ) notes : http://cygwin.com

RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> 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

RE: SetupXP

2003-07-20 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> > First, please drop > > "-r HEAD" from your diff command. All that accomplishes is to make the > > generated patch *revert all changes to HEAD that you haven't merged into > > your local copy*. > > > > Ouch, ok, important safety tip. I thought I had gotten all the > changes to HEAD, > but as

ccdoc is now part of the Cygwin net release

2003-07-20 Thread Elfyn McBratney
Hi Joe, I wasn't too sure whether you are or still are watching the cygwin-apps mailing list, so I'm mailing you directly just in case. I uploaded ccdoc to the Cygwin mirror system (11th July) and it's now available via setup.exe . If you're still interested in maintaining it for us, could you se

[Ready for test/1.5.0] gdbm-1.8.3-4, libgdbm4

2003-07-20 Thread Charles Wilson
Okay, thanks to Pierre's contributions, we may have a solution for gdbm... I've just posted an *official* new release of gdbm to the main list. I reverted my entire system to 1.3.22 status (no test packages at all), and rebuilt gdbm with Pierre's programs. That's the new, curr: release (1.8.3-3)