Re: [perl-win32-gui-hackers] Proposition for NEM

[Steve P. <st...@ba...>]

Hi,

Glad you think it's a good idea, because it's implemented now. I THINK i've
stopped it crashing as well :) This is my first REAL bash at some new XS
code instead of just fixing C bugs. So the fact that it works is pretty
impressive. Anyway, it'll hit the CVS soon so keep your eyes peeled.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glenn Linderman" <pe...@ne...>
To: "Steve Pick" <st...@ba...>
Cc: "Win32 GUI Hackers" <per...@li...>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: [perl-win32-gui-hackers] Proposition for NEM


> Well, well, well.  Should I use the "great minds think alike" line?
>
> Or is this just so obviously a good idea that we both have thought of it?
>
> Clearly there are some well-defined events that need to have particular
> handling applied, and Win32::GUI needs to default to doing that handling.
>
> Clearly any event for which a handler exists, it would be nice to be
> able to override or supplement the default handling.  I suppose for full
> generality, the hooks should define whether they are "pre-default
> handling" hooks, or "post-default handling" hooks, but it seems that
> most things in Windows are set up so that only "pre-default handling
> hooks" are needed.  But I'm no Windows expert, so correct me here if I'm
> wrong.
>
> One of my most desired features for the NEM, other than getting the bugs
> and incompletenesses out of it, is the ability to obtain a reference to
> the "current handler", so that a new handler could be written to wrap
> the "current handler", or to substitute for it for a while, and then put
> it back.  Without that, NEM is not very extensible.
>
> And the idea of defining the events for which the user can define hooks,
> which is the gist of your message, is clearly the way to go for full
> capability.  It is not clear to me if such a handler should be placed in
> Win32::GUI::Dialog/DoEvents/etc., or in the MessageLoops code, probably
> the latter, but there are so many of them, and I don't even understand
> fully why there are so many of them.  So the former seems like a more
> central location!
>
> When I was contemplating finishing or replacing Win32::GUI since Aldo
> was "incognito" for an extended period, I considered discarding the
> MessageLoops stuff entirely, putting the hooks you suggest into Dialog,
> and discovering what else I didn't know, and how disastrous it would
> have been to do so... but I decided the shortest path to a working
> project would be to fix a few bugs in the old event model, and use it,
> so that is what I am doing.
>
> BTW, I have seen/have a program that use PeekMessage extensively, as the
> primary GUI interface.  It does function, if properly manipulated.  Said
> program was not authored by me, however, so I don't feel I can
> distribute it... but I could give you a pointer to the author if you
> wish to ask him about it.
>
>
> On approximately 12/4/2003 4:25 PM, came the following characters from
> the keyboard of Steve Pick:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here's a nice idea:
> >
> > use Win32::GUI;
> > my $win = new Win32::GUI::Window(
> >     -name => "Test",
> >     -left => 100,
> >     -top => 100,
> >     -width => 100,
> >     -height => 100,
> >     -onResize => \&Test_resize
> > );
> >
> > # Whenever we get WM_SETCURSOR, call perl sub setcursor with message
> > parameters.
> > $win->Hook(WM_SETCURSOR, \&setcursor);
> >
> > # ... some code ...
> >
> > # Reassign WM_SETCURSOR to go elsewhere
> >
> > $win->Hook(WM_SETCURSOR, \&changecursorback);
> >
> > # ... some more code ...
> >
> > # Now reset WM_SETCURSOR to trigger DefWndProc().
> > $win->UnHook(WM_SETCURSOR);
> >
> > Since we can never implement all the events the user might wish to catch
in
> > the NEM, this method lets the user define when they want to catch a
specific
> > event and handle it in Perl, and when they want to finish their capture.
> > This beats the hell out of using GetMessage (non-blocking, faster,
simpler)
> > and PeekMessage (peekmessage always seems to return nothing anyway).
> >
> > What do you think? Should I implement this?
> >
> > Steve.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> > help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> > YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Perl-Win32-GUI-Hackers mailing list
> > Per...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-win32-gui-hackers
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
> ===========================
> Like almost everyone, I receive a lot of spam every day, much of it
> offering to help me get out of debt or get rich quick.  It's ridiculous.
> -- Bill Gates
>
> And here is why it is ridiculous:
>   The division that includes Windows posted an operating profit of $2.26
>   billion on revenue of $2.81 billion.
>   --from Reuters via
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031113/tech_microsoft_msn_1.html
>
> So that's profit of over 400% of investment... with a bit more
> investment in Windows technology, particularly in the area of
> reliability, the profit percentage might go down, but so might the bugs
> and security problems?  Seems like it would be a reasonable tradeoff.
> WalMart earnings are 3.4% of investment.
>
>