[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] implementation

To: "[MiNT] Mailing-List" <mint@fishpool.com>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] implementation
From: Jo Even Skarstein <joska@online.no>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:58:18 +0100
Delivered-to: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <489fbc9a0512100835ic3e2019u@mail.gmail.com>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
> [mailto:mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi]On Behalf Of Joakim Högberg
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 5:36 PM
>
> I think this settles the whole thing really - a new call should better
> be introduced, in order to handle a situation that clearly was not
> anticipated when the original specs were written.

Yes, sounds reasonable. OTOH I would suggest to optionally just use WM_SIZED
(configurable for each running application), as this would probably allow
many existing apps to work without the "SIZED first MOVED second" approach.

Jo Even

References:
- Re: [MiNT] implementation
  - From: Joakim Högberg <gokmase@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: [MiNT] Trans.: Re: WM_REPOSED implementation
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] WM_REPOSED implementation
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] implementation
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] implementation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread