> On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 21:31, Max Bowsher wrote: > > > Actually, no. > > Today, we don't handle the situation because NEXT() is obsolete code that > > fails to actually do anything. > > Well, NEXT() in this does attempt to reactivate the current dialog > doesn't it? Gary - any input here? >
Yeah, no, NEXT has been broken ever since the switch to the property sheet. I kept it around becuase it does still do "next_dialog = id", which is not entirely obsolete until these pending patches are comitted. > > After this, we kind of handle the situation, and will be able to handle the > > situation properly one we have full use of exceptions. > > It's not a situation that should warrant an exception or failure. All we > need to do is get the correct value from the dialog. > > > > It seems better to me to loop (say max 2 times) if such a race occurs, > > > rather than reentering the dialog or exiting. > > > > Try to actually trigger it. The dialog changes so fast, it is impossible to > > do. > > So, if a user can't trigger this oddness, the only remaining cause is > > Windows oddness, which is good reason to bail out. > > > > Actually, my preferred change would be to not try to detect this error, > > since I don't think it can occur. > > Hmm, I'll defer to Gary on this. If he says it's impossible to occur, > lets simplify the code. If it is possible to occur, lets Do The Right > thing, windows oddness or not. I'll look at this tomorrow. It's early and I haven't had my Mountain Dew yet, but it sounds to me that its not possible to cause this. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot.
