Re: command-enabled

• To: clim@BBN.COM
• Subject: Re: command-enabled
• From: Nichael Cramer <ncramer@BBN.COM>
• Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 9:18:21 EDT

>From: Daniel Cerys <cerys@BBN.COM>
>Subject: Re: command-enabled
>Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 08:43:36 EDT
>
>Chris Elsaesser wrote on 18 April 1994:
> > Clim-2-beta ... Lucid 4.0.3
> > When I do:
> >   (setf (clim:command-enabled 'com-Run *frame* *control-commands*) nil)
> >   [bug deleted]
>This must be a partially implemented Lucid extension.  I'm using Franz'
>CLIM and I get:
>COMMAND-ENABLED's arglist: (COMMAND-NAME (FRAME STANDARD-APPLICATION-FRAME))
>just as the documentation claims.  To be honest, I don't know what the
>command-table argument would even do; it's unnecessary given the frame.
>
>Dan

Just as a footnote: It's worth mentioning the the other approach here which
is to specialize the COMMAND-ENABLED method on the command-name (and the
frame, of course).

This more "functional" approach is sometimes quite useful (for example when
used on the commands on a pull-down menu-bar).  In particular it saves me
the grief of keeping track of the bookkeeping involved in enabling and
disabling the various commands.

Also the SETF-like approach seems to cause the DISABLED-COMMANDS slot on
the frame to grow without bounds (at least this is true on the FRANZ that
I'm using).  This makes things like DESCRIBE-ing the frame somewhat
painful.  More an annoyance than a bug really, but still...

N

• Prev: Re: command-enabled
• Next: Re: command-enabled
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)