This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal
- From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
- To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>,<cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:44:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal
- References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKIEAAEGAA.email@example.com>
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Gary's current SetupXP patchset calls 2 member functions on page
>> 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
>> I would very much prefer changing OnActivate to return bool, combining
>> 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,
>> logical API.
> That was exactly my originally-submitted patch. It was refused.
IIRC, it was refused because it had a load of other changes mixed into it,
NOT because of the methodology used.
PS: Please repost your diff, even if you've actually merged very few of my
suggestions. I'd like to have an up-to-date base from which to proceed