dmd 2.029 release [OT]

[BCS]

Reply to Nick,

> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message
> news:a6268ff50d58cb92d952e5b612 at news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> Hello Nick,
>> 
>>> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a6268ff50558cb92691721562e at news.digitalmars.com...
>>>> yah, for some programs you rarely want to close the program but
>>>> often want to close the UI.
>>>> 
>>> That's called "Minimize".
>>> 
>> It can be, OTOH I might want the UI process killed without killing
>> the main program. Another point is the other side of the assertion,
>> "you rarely want to close the program" as in 90% of the time even
>> when I hit the x button, I don't actually want to close the program.
>> 
> The whole point of the 'x' button is the close the program. Always has
> been. If I didn't want to close the program, I wouldn't push it.

Are you saying you never make mistakes? There are program out there that 
90% of the time when I hit the x button it was a mistake and in that cases 
I think it to be a good design to work around it. I guess if you really hate 
having it not kill the app then the program could just not /have/ a x button.

> If you want to hide/kill the UI without closing the program, that's
> "minimize". True, minimizing to the taskbar doesn't kill the UI
> process/thread (assuming it even is a separate process/thread), but in
> the rare cases where the distinction of "UI process running/killed"
> actually matters, the program can still do that through a minimize to
> tray. And while neither "minimize" nor "close" truly mean "minimize to
> tray", clearly "minimize" is FAR closer in both wording and behavior.
> Any way you look at it, having a "close" button that doesn't "close"
> the app is like having a "cancel" button that prints, or a "save"
> button that plays music.
> 

Your missing my point. I don't want to re-task the button but make it not 
do something that most of the time is not what I want.