NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/windows/x/14266

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-23 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!organ!ware
From: [e-mail] (Peter Ware)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Kills from Window Manager
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:32:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: organ.WARE.92Jul23123247
References: <1992Jul18.132220.18254@thunder.m>
Sender: [e-mail] (NETnews        )
Organization: Ohio State Computer Science
Lines: 23
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 18 Jul 92 17: 22 MDT
Originator: [e-mail]

In article <1992Jul18.132220.18254@thunder.m> [e-mail] writes:

   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Barry Margolin) writes:

   > "Send Delete" is presumably bound to f.delete, which invokes the
   > WM_DELETE_WINDOW protocol.  Well-behaved applications should
   > implement this protocol; see the ICCCM for details.

   If an application would simply exit when asked to delete its window,
   and it has no requirement for user interaction during its cleanup
   operations, if any, I see no reason why it should bother participating
   in WM_DELETE_WINDOW.  (I suspect this is a fairly large class of
   applications.)  Do you see any such reason?

Because to avoid the current error message you'd use an I/O error
handler that blithely ignores lost connections and just exits.

--pete
--
Pete Ware / Ohio State University /
           [e-mail]
           [phone]
Too bad the Nike slogan isn't "Just Do It Right" instead of "Just Do It"