On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:59:06PM -0500, Jon Oberheide wrote:
> Errr...I just submitted it but now I'm removing it. The problem with
> this patch would be that if you simply edited a message, you wouldn't be
> able to save it as its existing name, as it would force a rename. One
> solution would be to have a gaim_request_yes_no asking if the user would
> like to overwrite an existing away message based on the title. A
> problem with that, however, would be existing duplicates.
> Dah, I can't think...too much studying. If you can think for me and
> have any ideas, let me know.
The status rewrite (which hasn't had much TLC lately due to school and
then work) uses names as unique IDs. This is something that isn't set
in stone, and could easily be modified, but I think that they should
be unique. When we migrate to the new status API, or this could be
done now, even, we could automatically rename the duplicates. It could
look like this:
People will still have a good idea as to which is which, if they're
already choosing them based on their index in the menu. It's less
confusing them just having them all named "Sleeping," so if they can
handle that, I'm sure they can handle this :)
Christian Hammond <> The GNUpdate Project
chipx86@... <> http://www.gnupdate.org/
"Intel Inside" is a Government Warning required by Law.