Re: [AD] Overloading Alert

[Marcio Fialho <maaf1980@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dustin Dettmer wrote:

> What do you guys think of making another version of
> alert with this specification:
>
> int alert(const char*);
>  
I think it would be great.

> While I'm on the subject, hows \n parsing for alert
> coming along?  I heard someone had a working prototype
> on their machine or something.  Having to use 3
> strings and only have 3 lines are both a pain for users.
>
>  
This is surelly a feature I would like to have in the next version 
(4.2.0). If possible, it would be great to add this to the next WIP. I 
needed this several times.
The current alert implementation is not much useful. Limiting the number 
of lines to 3 is surely a pain.

If we could break backward compatibility, we could redefine 'alert' as 
proposed by Dustin, and create an  'alert_ex' with more options. What do 
you think?

If not, we could use another basename instead of  'alert'. (e.g. 
textalert or alertdialog), and deprecate the current  'alert' function. 
Indeed, it think it's an even better solution, because it would't break 
backward compatibility and alertdialog or textalert is a more meaningful 
name.

Regards,
Márcio.