Bug #66958

[Germain Garand]

Le Mercredi 10 Janvier 2007 12:51, Hasso Tepper a écrit :
> Germain Garand wrote:
> > I think you can proceed with your latter patch.
> > As for the konqueror bit, I don't use to touch that code, but I would
> > say adding a boolean argument to prepareReload, and setting
> > args.softReload from there would be cleaner (especially when it becomes
> > an enum in trunk).
>
> Like the attached patch?
>

yes, but the member name you chose in the previous patch (softReload) is 
better IMO.
What we want is two different level of depth for reloading ; wether the user 
initiated the reload isn't and shouldn't be relevant. 
(a software-induced "soft" reload should be able to not reset frames, and 
conversely, if we introduce a shift-something "hard" reload behaviour, it 
will have to reset frames even though initiated by user)