From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Thu Dec 8 21:34:59 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Message-ID: <1134073982.4398987ec8bb0@webmail1.utbm.fr> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:33:02 +0100 From: "olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr" To: mint@fishpool.com Subject: Re: [MiNT] WM_REPOSED implementation References: <4397F4C3.7030701@utbm.fr> <1134035229.5776.50.camel@linuxbox> <4398098F.2010604@utbm.fr> <43988E5F.6000201@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <43988E5F.6000201@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.8 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: Olivier.Landemarre@utbm.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_SORBS X-Spam-Level: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by wh58-508.st.uni-magdeburg.de id jB8KYwQi020891 > > I see only two choices: an application is ready to catch WM_REPOSED for > all its windows, or it is not. I really don't see why a developper may > choice to manage WM_REPOSED for some windows, and choice to not manage > WM_REPOSED for others... it's so simple to support WM_REPOSED ! > yes this my opinion too, it's why I have ask question, now with -1 option for windows all windows support this, I suppose all programmers will use it if they know it. I don't know if specific windows manangment for this message is usefull. Olivier