Re: More points for the technical discussion

On Monday, 2003-02-17, 20:25, CET, Nick Name wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:58:05 +0000 Glynn Clements
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Generally, you only set widget properties programmatically if you  have to
> > (i.e. because the values are determined dynamically).
>
> Yes,yes :) I was not proposing any true API, just arguing that one can
> abstract over a yesNoCancel dialog window, parametrizing it with the verb to
> use on macos and kde3 to avoid a "yes/no" question.

I think the distinction between static values (which don't have to be computed 
at run-time) and dynamic values (which have to be computed at run-time) is 
not very natural. It is just like a distinction between squares and 
rectangles which are not squares. I would prefer if we would handle static 
values the same way we handle dynamic values. That would mean that certain 
static values would appear in the source code.

>[...]

> This does not solve the verb conjugation problem,indeed (how does apple
> handle it in internationalization?)

Your approch for the Yes-No-Cancel dialogs was to specify a verb describing 
the action (e.g., "save") and to let the system produce the button captions. 
Why shouldn't we just define a function which has the captions of the Yes and 
the No button directly as arguments? An example application of it could be
    dialogYesNoCancel "Save" "Don't save" <other arguments>
which would name the buttons "Save", "Don't save" and "Cancel" on the Mac and 
"Yes", "No" and "Cancel" on a PC running Windows or KDE (:-)).

> [...]

> Vincenzo

Wolfgang