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

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Friday 20 June 2003 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday 20 June 2003 10:53, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > 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...

Isn't that a little bit to special? Wouldn't it be better to add a 
defaultButton parameter? Or do you fear that this would lead to 
inconsistent usage of those dialogs because every developer would 
choose the default according to his own gusto instead of only changing 
the predefined default only if it's really appropriate (i. e. in case 
of destructive actions)?

On a related issue: Does anyone object against adding three-button 
message boxes to KMessageBox? We need those in KMail. Currently we are 
using QMessageBox which allows three buttons with arbitrary text and 
arbitrary default button. The arbitrary default button is probably not 
that important. IMO always the first button should be the default 
button. But the arbitrary button text is important and therefore the 
YesNoCancel message boxes can't be used. Furthermore the QMessageBoxes 
return (by default) -1 in case the user aborted the message box with 
Esc or by closing the window instead of selecting one of the buttons.

Regards,
Ingo

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 192 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030622/6510c6cc/attachment.sig>