Re: [AD] Changes in CVS and some comments about patches

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Bukin <M.A.Bukin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>   About stddlg-override: maybe standard dialog procedures should be
>   changed, instead of adding new dprocs and changing standard dialogs?
>   For example:
> 
> int (*d_custom_button_proc) (...) = 0;
> 
> /* Renamed from d_button_proc and made static.  */
> static int d_standard_button_proc (...)
> {
> }
> 
> /* New d_button_proc with custom proc hook.  */
> int d_button_proc (...)
> {
>   if (d_custom_button_proc)
>     return (*d_custom_button_proc) (...);
>   else
>     return d_standard_button_proc (...);
> }

But then you can't chain back to the original function without doing
something dirty, e.g.

    d_custom_button_proc = my_button_proc;
    
    int my_button_proc (...)
    {
        if (msg == MSG_DRAW)
    	   return draw_pretty_button ();
        else {
            int ret;
            d_custom_button_proc = 0;
    	    ret = d_button_proc (...);
    	    d_custom_button_proc = my_button_proc;
    	    return ret;
        }
    }

>   Another option is to place all dialog procedures each to its own
>   file and allow users to override them by linking their own version.

This suffers from the same problem as above, e.g.

    int d_button_proc (...)
    {
	if (msg == MSG_DRAW)
	    return draw_pretty_button ();
	else
	    return d_button_proc (...);	/* bzzt! */
    }

... right?

-- 
EXPRESSHOLES (eks PRES holz), n.  People who try to sneak more than the
"eight items or less" into the express checkout line.
	-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"