Nicer than Disable...()

[djes]

Disable...() functions should be renamed, mixed with "state" functions, or joined with Enable...() functions. For example, DisableWindow() syntax is not clear :

DisableWindow(#Window, State);
'State' can take the following values:
1: The window is disabled.
0: The window is enabled.

is giving this crappy code

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #Disabled)
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #Enabled)

It would be nicer to have

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(#MyWindow)
EnableWindow(#MyWindow)

and much better (because programmable)

Code: Select all

SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Disabled)
SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Enabled)

[Josh]

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(#MyWindow)
EnableWindow(#MyWindow)

Not good. In this case you couldn't set the state by parameter.

Code: Select all

SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Disabled)
SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Enabled)

Also not good. In this case you get a conflict with #PB_Window_Maximize etc

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #True)
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #False)

This i'm using

[IdeasVacuum]

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #True)
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #False)

That's how I use the existing functions, I think it's absolutely fine.

[djes]

Code: Select all

SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Disabled)
SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Enabled)

Also not good. In this case you get a conflict with #PB_Window_Maximize etc

Think a bit more

Code:
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #True)
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #False)
That's how I use the existing functions, I think it's absolutely fine.

It's not because it works that it's fine. Using a negative word to do a positive action is just... Crappy !

[idle]

I have to agree with djes, It's just not good form to invoke a double negative conundrum

EnableFoo(object)
DisableFoo(object)

and additionally

SetFoo(object,state)
GetFoo(object,state)

would make a whole lot more sense

[Josh]

Code: Select all

SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Disabled)
SetWindowState(#Fenetre, #Enabled)

Also not good. In this case you get a conflict with #PB_Window_Maximize etc

Think a bit more

Maybe you think a bit more In this case you have a problem, because the parameter has to been used as a flag. If not, you have a problem with GetWindowState(MyWindow)

Code:
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #True)
DisableWindow(#MyWindow, #False)
That's how I use the existing functions, I think it's absolutely fine.

It's not because it works that it's fine. Using a negative word to do a positive action is just... Crappy !

Where do you see a negative word to do a positive action? The action is Disable

[MachineCode]

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(#MyWindow)
EnableWindow(#MyWindow)

No way! I use flags to toggle the state, and the above way makes much more coding. Compare which is shorter and easier:

Code: Select all

If WinDisabled=1
  DisableWindow(#MyWin)
Else
  EnableWindow(#MyWin)
EndIf

Code: Select all

WinDisabled=1-WinDisabled
DisableWindow(WinDisabled)

You can always write your own macros to do it the way you like, but don't force others to change their coding preferences.

DisableWindow() syntax is not clear

In your opinion. It's crystal-clear to me. I don't want to change my sources just because you don't like it.

[Dadido3]

Here's the solution

just define these macros:

Code: Select all

Procedure DisableWindow_(Window, State)
  DisableWindow(Window, State)
EndProcedure

Macro DisableWindow(Window, State=#True)
  DisableWindow_((Window), (State))
EndMacro

Macro EnableWindow(Window, State=#True)
  DisableWindow_((Window), ~(State))
EndMacro

And then you can do something like:

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(123) ; to disable it
DisableWindow(123, #True) ; to disable it
DisableWindow(123, #False) ; to enable it

EnableWindow(123) ; to enable it
EnableWindow(123, #True) ; to enable it
EnableWindow(123, #False) ; to disable it

and its completly backwards compatible...
It coul'd be built into purebasic this way and everyone would be happy

(I haven't tested the macros, but i hope you can see what they should do)

[Tenaja]

You can always write your own macros to do it the way you like, but don't force others to change their coding preferences.

I always find it interesting when someone suggests a feature that could easily be implemented as backwards compatible to all existing code, and helpful to many coders, but just because there is code that does not use the new feature someone always screams "don't make me change!"

This happens regularly...it is very unfortunate. (And MachineCode, please do not take this as a personal attack, or a comment on you specifically--your post is just the most recent of many similar posts, so my comment is to "all of us". Also, realize that this is NOT my first post to go back and edit...)

Everybody (i.e. the "regulars") knows that it is highly unlikely that Fred will ever implement a feature that would break existing code, unless he is making a major core upgrade, such as the 3.x to 4.0 upgrade. Everybody also knows that Fred is bright enough to come up with a way to implement almost EVERY feature request using a method that maintains backwards compatibility. It is pretty safe to assume that Fred would not force us to change.

[djes]

You can always write your own macros to do it the way you like, but don't force others to change their coding preferences.

I don't force anyone, I'm suggesting, and I know that it can be done easily

Here's the solution

just define these macros:

Code: Select all

Procedure DisableWindow_(Window, State)
  DisableWindow(Window, State)
EndProcedure

Macro DisableWindow(Window, State=#True)
  DisableWindow_((Window), (State))
EndMacro

Macro EnableWindow(Window, State=#True)
  DisableWindow_((Window), ~(State))
EndMacro

And then you can do something like:

Code: Select all

DisableWindow(123) ; to disable it
DisableWindow(123, #True) ; to disable it
DisableWindow(123, #False) ; to enable it

EnableWindow(123) ; to enable it
EnableWindow(123, #True) ; to enable it
EnableWindow(123, #False) ; to disable it

and its completly backwards compatible...
It coul'd be built into purebasic this way and everyone would be happy

(I haven't tested the macros, but i hope you can see what they should do)

Great, and totally backward compatible The same thing could apply to SetWindowState(), with a new constant to Enable|Disable OR'D with the existing constants, giving the possibility to alter the window with only one command (and so, reducing code size).
There's also a lot of other "Disable***()" everywhere in the language.

Tenaja> Agree with you

[MachineCode]

MachineCode, please do not take this as a personal attack

It's okay, I didn't. And I know nobody is "forcing" any changes at this time. I just wanted to nip it in the bud, if it were needed.