On 26 Nov 2002, at 17:25, P Witte wrote:
> iop.rptr does if you set the appropriate bits in the return vector. > But Wman calls (wm.rptr) only respond to "events" (see the Qptr > manual, pages 89 ff "Window Manager Access Routines") Ah yes, you WERE talking about wm.rptr... > AW events are entirely up to the programmer. My point is they are not > processed by wm.rptr but by iop.rptr. This explains why there is no > reaction to keystrokes defined in the main menu unless the AW happens > to be a MSW. Again, I find this not to be the case. Just to be sure, I built a small application with QPTR, a wdw with an appsub window that is not a menu appsub window. I DO get the keystrokes for the Loose Items even if the pointer is in the appsub wdw. I can let you have the program if you want. Now, I know that QPTR uses a special action routine for appsub wdws that aren't menu appsub wdws (and where the call returns to basic at every pointer move & keyclick in the appsub wdw), but, unless I'm wrong, the keystrokes for Loose Menu items get trapped by the WMAN RPTR loop before this action routine is ever called. I haven't tried this from assembler, though. Perhaps it's just EasyPtr's way of handling things? > The simplest solution here is to use Dummy LIs in your main menu, as > described earlier, and then use wm.rptr. However, this may not always > be appropriate as MSWs can display a variable amount of data whilst > the number of LIs must be pre-determined. Even though it would be possible to generate the LIs dynamically (after all they are size (0,0) generally at position (0,0) so colours etc don't matter) I don't like this solution of dummy LIs very much. I persume, though, that you couldn't do that from EasyPtr anyway, due to the way it builds the wdw (but I could be wrong here). (...) > > I'm sorry, I don'y use that. I've always found QPTR far easier - but > > it's a matter of taste! > > Having tried both, I definitely find EasyPTR easier to use - at least > once I got to grips with it. Same here, but with QPTR - I think it's just a question of getting used to the thing. > If you really prefer Qptr, you could > still benefit from using the interactive design tools from EasyPTR - > especially EasyMenu - if you could write a program to convert window > definitions into Qptr-compatible SB statements. This might not be too > difficult to do. A better way would be a menu designer for QPTR, of course... Would also make it easier for Assembler programmers (...) > * I hope all this makes sense ;) It does to me. Wolfgang
