Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Workbench and object-oriented programming (was Re: Iconification)
Message-ID: <508@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jan 88 22:25:16 GMT
References: <1076@sugar.UUCP> <2826@cbmvax.UUCP> <1103@sugar.UUCP> <1342@sugar.UUCP>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 32

In article <1342@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Firstly, I'm about 80% ready to ship a beta version of a new directory
> utility. This one is called "Browser", and emulates the workbench, except
> that ALL files are displayed (no, no icons are used). I'm still tryiung
> to decide whether to give it away or sell it. Any input?

Well of course we'd RATHER get it for free....  In what way does it
emulate the workbench?  To what extent will it let you work without a CLI?

> In article ... pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes:
> > Snapshotting icons onto the screen would be really useful.  I'm not so
> > sure about (partially) off-screen windows.  It's not something I've
> > ever wanted.  If it's put in, it should be as an option.
> 
> Of course it'd be an option. If you never dragged your windows off the screen,
> you'd never know it was there.

No, no.  That doesn't make it an option.  It would be pretty easy to
inadvertently drag a window off screen.  There should be a global
option (set in startup-sequence or, better, preferences) that would
enable/disable partially offscreen windows.  When I'm moving windows, I
often slam them around counting on intuition to keep them on screen.
Allowing offscreen windows would mean I couldn't do that anymore.

If you're talking about an add-on program like conman or some such,
fine.  No problem.  But if it's built into workbench (as was requested
when this discussion started), it should be an option.  And the default
should probably be off (for backward compatibility).
-- 
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
...!sun!quintus!pds