Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: GadTools functionality Message-ID: Date: 29 Jan 91 23:06:53 GMT References: <91023.105132GHGAQA4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> <18096@cbmvax.commodore.com> <18205@cbmvax.commodore.com> <18249@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 76 In-Reply-To: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 29 Jan 91 16:49:04 GMT In article <18249@cbmvax.commodore.com> peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: Some programmers have built libraries of routines, so that creating a mutually-exclusive panel doesn't mean hitting the RKMs for a week, but a cut-and-paste operation. They may find the benefit of GadTools to be less, since they roll pretty well right now. This is exactly the problem - using GadTools is harder than using the stuff I've already got, and the two don't intermix - because of limitations in GadTools. If you put a spin on your understanding of what I said the first time, it should come as no surprise that when I reiterate my thoughts you claim there has been a major change. When you read the function prototypes or autodocs and see a Requester parameter, how hard is it to figure out that we intend to address requesters? As I pointed out the first time around, I didn't have the autodocs then. You didn't "it'll be fixed;", you said "use windows instead." Just don't claim you were blown off last time. Nobody tried to tell you requesters were wrong. I merely expressed that developers are migrating to windows-as-requesters, and that you also have that option. Fine - how about the relative placement gadgets? You told me "They're not adequate". Once again - no indication of future plans, and I don't recall seeing a flag (even tagged as unimplemented). Last time around, I didn't press the matter. Ditto for some facility to move the gadgets after they've been created. And by the way, we rarely fix a bug based on a ballot system. Number of reports doesn't count, provided it exceeds zero. From time to time a bug will fall off the face of the earth, for several reasons. Here are a few: [ list deleted ] Fine. Provide _feedback_. Even if you believe the problem isn't a real problem, say something. I've dealt with companies who's normal response was "That's not a bug, that's a feature." Even that is better than nothing. Requests for this (or release notes stating what CBM thinks have been fixed, etc) are a common occurence in the BIX support areas. BTW, the bugs in question aren't yours; neither is the response problem. This is all part of the general lack of information - and slow responses on requests - from CBM in general. So please mail me a brief problem description. Let me verify that both bugs are still in the 37.x that I plan on getting tonight, and if appropriate, I'll have bug reports in the official channels tonight. Just as a pointer, try running something that does dynamic menus, and rolls them to more columns if they are to long. Watch what happens when the menu gets clipped on the right. Please see the DevCon notes. They contain an explanation of how you would build dynamic menus. It's not hard at all, and nothing has to be redone from scratch. You're correct - I dismissed the method as clumsy (it's clumsier than my five-year-old link library), and haven't looked at it in a while. I had forgotten exactly what the problem was. Hey. Use a requester and don't use GadTools. My ego can handle it. I had assumed so; others were trying to tell me that wasn't the case.