Use of KMessageBox::warningYesNo for continue/cancel questions.

[Waldo Bastian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 20 June 2003 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday 20 June 2003 10:53, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > You mention KMail but KMail uses warnngYesNoCancel to confirm sending. It
> > will surely not be affected by a change in  warningContinueCancel's
> > behaviour.
>
> true... but this makes warningContinueCancel different from
> warningYesNoCancel due to the difference between "Continue" and "YesNo"
> when the real issue is the severity (e.g. warning) of the dialog...
>
> more to the point, i just grep'd KDE CVS for warningContinueCancel usage
> and found 224 instances. not all seem to be guarding "dangerous" or
> inconvenient actions, though most/all are warnings of some sort. i'm
> concerned about simply changing the semantics of an existing dialog like
> that, since it does impact pretty heavily how the user interacts with the
> dialog...
>
> > Konqueror should use warningContinueCancel in the cases that you changed,
> > and if that doesn't give the desired result then warningContinueCancel
> > should be adjusted.
>
> hrm... as per our recent IRC chat, how about the attached patch? this would
> allow the application to tell KMessageBox if the action is "dangerous" and
> should therefore be protected by safer defaults, allow applications to use
> the "proper" KMessageBox variants, and not alter the current default
> behaviour nor add any new methods to KMessageBox...

I think that would be a good solution indeed.

Cheers,
Waldo
- -- 
bastian at kde.org -=|[ SuSE, The Linux Desktop Experts ]|=- bastian at suse.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE+818FN4pvrENfboIRApExAJ4swQp+ldXun7Q9sc0XUDw80zZmZACfe7Lo
3LLuO8XrL+DZsuMGHTmg9SM=
=95md
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----