RE: [AD] Old patches return

[Vincent Penquerc'h <Vincent.Penquerch@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Do these decorations need to be GUI objects at all? Can't you 
> make them 
> part of the real object?

Not quite. They're not *only* decorations, and they can be removed,
etc. I *could* make them part of the real object, but it would be a
gross thing to do.

> Hidden objects are deemed "inactive" in the docs, so I think 

Yes, but the wording is unfortunate, as it lumps two useful things
in a single category. But I agree it's preferrable to let it that way.

> 
> > > Don't forget that disabled objects must redraw themselves, so
> > > they must get at least the MSG_DRAW message.
> >
> > They should get it. I do have disabled objects that are drawn.
> 
> You mean with your patch applied? If so, that's because 
> object_message() is 
> called directly on them. But
> 
> @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@
>           if ((try == 2) && (&dialog[count] != 
> active_menu_player->dialog))
>             continue;
> 
> -        if ((force) || (!(dialog[count].flags & D_HIDDEN))) {
> +        if ((force) || (!(dialog[count].flags & D_DISABLED))) {
>             r = object_message(&dialog[count], msg, c);
> 
>             if (r != D_O_K) {
> 
> will turn dialog_message() into a no-op for them with 
> MSG_DRAW for sure, 
> because 'force' is FALSE for MSG_DRAW.

Hmm, I only vaguely remember what I did at the time, sorry.
It indeed seems to be that way, and I certainly call object_message
on some objects (which I think is appropriate, is it ?)

I'd have to do some testing with the old code (well, old for me :))
and check what goes wrong to really remember the specifics. Too bad
I've not done Valkin/Allegro stuff for three months now :)

Anyway, feel free to let it out if you think it's better that way.

Cheers

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h