Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!bj From: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: GadTools functionality Message-ID: <18298@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 30 Jan 91 03:56:37 GMT References: <91023.105132GHGAQA4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> <18096@cbmvax.commodore.com> <18232@cbmvax.commodore.com> Reply-To: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 33 In article mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >I didn't mean to imply that his work was a not well implemented. The >behavior of the code is proof to the contrary. The attitude of "don't >use requesters, use windows instead" indicates that he views adding >support for requesters as a kludge, and wishes they would go away. Again you put words in Peter's (our) mouth. What he said (and I reiterate) is that given (1) the time constraints involved in developing Gadtools along with (2) the time constraints involved in devloping the 2.0 OS along with (3) the ROM size constraints for 2.0 (and, by definition, Gadtools) some choices had to be made. Those choices were made based upon what Peter felt would serve the MOST programmers in the best way. That is a far cry from "wishing requesters would go away." It simply recognizes the fact that *many* programmers have chosen to use windows in favor of requesters for myriad reasons. That doesn't in the least negate the functionality of requesters or the fact that people like them and would like to have them get the Gadtools "treatment" as well. I must admit to a certain level of mystification over your position on this. The Requester hooks are quite obviously there in both the prototypes and the function docs. How can you assume that they weren't considered? >