home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Goemon <goemon@venice.mps.ohio-state.edu>
- Subject: Re: Dialog Box Proposal Part 1
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 1:18:21 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <9406270010.AA04742@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>; from "Warwick Allison" at Jun 27, 94 10:10 am
- Precedence: bulk
-
- > Merely listing all the features of LetEmFly2, preceded by `MUST' is a very
- > poor and un-thought-out standard.
-
- Warwick, like I said. I was posting it so everyone could start talking
- about new dialog box standards. What's the problem, anyway?
-
- > The above requirement is VERY expensive to implement when dialogs are in
- > windows.
-
- Warwick, what's so hard about this requirement? I did this in WinLIB PRO,
- and you saw that. Even a *TWIT* could do this!
-
- > In my opinion, the whole idea of LetEmFly2 is useless unless it can be
- > easily used for non-modal dialogs. We sure be using LESS modal dialog
- > boxes, not more.
-
- It is, but if you are so inclined as to talk bad about a program you've
- not yet seen, why even talk about it at all? You don't even KNOW what
- new stuff I've added to it. You have NO clue what-so-ever. And about
- dialog boxes easily for non-modal dialogs? It's so easy it's not even
- FUNNY. You've just got to see the new LTMF-2. But, from the way you're
- talking about a program you've not yet seen, I like your attitude.
-
- Don't talk about a program unless you've seen it in action. LTMF-2 is
- nothing compared to its previous version. Everyone KNOWS that you can
- use the form_button and form_keybd routines in windows easily. Why
- are you even bringing up this?
-
- LTMF-2 does this anyway, because many programs out on the market don't
- USE non-modal dialogs (those are old ones). All the programmers would
- have to do is use a simple call to get my routines and they would be
- on their way to non-modal city. What's your problem, d00d?
-
- -- Ken
-
-
-