Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!phils From: phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: I like DMOUSE Message-ID: <2950@tekigm2.TEK.COM> Date: 19 May 88 05:14:41 GMT References: <8805181425.AA08496@decwrl.dec.com> Reply-To: phils@tekigm2.UUCP (Philip E Staub) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 36 In article <8805181425.AA08496@decwrl.dec.com> davis@lowlif.dec.com (Earth!USA/Missouri/KC/DEC/Davis.Richard) writes: >The reviews are in. The public is cheering. DMOUSE is a success! (And I >was a Mach user...) Thanks Matt! Especially for pulling out the handler >code. Sure is nice to have a little extra memory. Two things, though: > I agree. I like it too! However, I also have two "things". Here are my two: 1. When in SDB, hitting F10 to see the "output" window gets you there with no way back to the debugging window, except for clicking on the window-to-back gadget. (Yeah, I know... nothing can be done about it except to turn off dmouse (no! not that!). I also can live with it.). 2. The other is also in SDB: while debugging, the hotkey is apparently being trapped before dmouse ever sees it. I suspect it's just a function of priorities. All in all though, Matt, my vote is *not* to change anything. After all, you've given them the source, and they can add the features they want. (Yes, I have my flameproof suit on. I know lots of folks may not know how to add the features they feel they "need". But thats part of the fun of computers as a hobby: learning by doing.) I've seen too many cases of code which was originally useful, but grew to such a behemoth that they were unuseable, unreasonable and unsupportable. I like it just as it is!. ... > > Richard Davis > Kansas City Software Services Thanks, Phil -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Staub "I do NOT approve. I merely said I UNDERSTAND." tektronix!tekigm2!phils - Spock phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM