Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"

[gerard patel]

At 02:38 PM 5/2/01 -0600, you wrote:
> Well, examining how Windows does it can be done,
> but I don't think it's too useful, as I think that the current approach
> with that fix should work fine.
> > Now I think I see : this can only be useful if EndDialog is called from
> > another thread, right ? If yes, you really *should* mention this in the
> > remark before the code. No need to be mysterious IMHO.
>
> I don't think the "other thread" is important.
> What is important is the fact that if we don't get frequent messages,
> the dialog will stay open without that fix.

Well, if the current thread is active, it's in the dialog code I guess since
DialogBox is, well, modal.
And if it's in the dialog code, the code run should be in dialog box
procedure, so it should be in a message handling. So any EndDialog
is followed by a  return to the dialog loop. I am not quite sure of
that, though.
> Windows definitely does NOT do it this way, of course
> (well, I'd be surprised if it actually did ;-).
> This is just a (crude, if you want) hack to make it work.
> And I figured sending WM_NULL shouldn't hurt.
> I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite the whole dialog handling
> (e.g. to do it like Windows), but I don't think it matters at all
> at the moment.
> There are much more important things to do.

Possibly, but it's important at least to add a comment saying that it is a hack....
Correct documentation can wait you think ? Wine is full of strange code
that nobody knows why it's here already :-/

Gerard

annoying EndDialog "feature"

[Andreas Mohr]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:17:19PM +0100, gerard patel wrote:
> At 02:38 PM 5/2/01 -0600, you wrote:
> > Well, examining how Windows does it can be done,
> > but I don't think it's too useful, as I think that the current approach
> > with that fix should work fine.
> > > Now I think I see : this can only be useful if EndDialog is called from
> > > another thread, right ? If yes, you really *should* mention this in the
> > > remark before the code. No need to be mysterious IMHO.
> >
> > I don't think the "other thread" is important.
> > What is important is the fact that if we don't get frequent messages,
> > the dialog will stay open without that fix.
>
> Well, if the current thread is active, it's in the dialog code I guess since
> DialogBox is, well, modal.
> And if it's in the dialog code, the code run should be in dialog box
> procedure, so it should be in a message handling. So any EndDialog
> is followed by a  return to the dialog loop. I am not quite sure of
> that, though.

I've never really looked that up.
> > Windows definitely does NOT do it this way, of course
> > (well, I'd be surprised if it actually did ;-).
> > This is just a (crude, if you want) hack to make it work.
> > And I figured sending WM_NULL shouldn't hurt.
> > I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite the whole dialog handling
> > (e.g. to do it like Windows), but I don't think it matters at all
> > at the moment.
> > There are much more important things to do.
>
> Possibly, but it's important at least to add a comment saying that it is a hack....
> Correct documentation can wait you think ? Wine is full of strange code
> that nobody knows why it's here already :-/

Well, at least I *do* add comments to my code... ;-)
(and that comment wasn't so bad)
But yes, it only went as far as explaining 70%, not 100%.

Andreas Mohr