On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, BALATON Zoltan escribió:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >I don't like having a configurable switch for trivial things like this.
> >I guess that most users simply don't care about one way or another.
> >
> >High-level switches like having icons or not is what should be aimed for.
> >Once you make a high-level choice, you "basically" get what you get.
> >What "basically" means is not well-defined of course, but I think that
> >this patch goes a bit beyond.
> >
> >There has to be some limit for pickiness.

Hi,

both are right. I think like Carlos, this is a trivial thing and we should have 
a limit. But, in this case the code was there. IMO I prefer always change 
things in runtime that change things in compiling time.

I thing we have three options:

1. Don't do nothing, and continue with compiling time
2. Remove all code, because is trivial
3. Apply the patch and continue with this functionality in running time.

Therefore, IMHO, in this case, option 3 and +1 for upload the patch.

Regards,
kix
 
> I don't understand what you don't like about this patch since this
> is not even adding a new option. This option has always been there
> in wconfig.h (as NEWAPPICON) but there was no way to change it at
> runtime. My patch simply makes it runtime configurable and adds an
> option to the expert panel which already has switches for things
> like using save under or not or having selection animation of icons.
> This option is not more picky than those. Moreover I took care not
> to change the default behaviour either so most users don't have to
> care about it at all and this also removes a #define and
> corresponding #ifdefs so it can count as a cleanup.
> 
> Having this option configurable only at compile time has been a
> reason for me to always have to compile my own version of Window
> Maker instead of being able to use the package that comes with the
> distribution. I can continue compiling my own version of course
> (looking at flashing and washed out icons is not an option for me)
> but merging this patch would make at least one of your user's life
> easier without doing anyone else any harm so I don't see why you
> would not take it. Of course it's your decision as a maintainer but
> you could reconsider it.
> 
> Regards,
> BALATON Zoltan
> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].


-- 
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].

Reply via email to