On 2012-08-14 at 09:07:03 [+0200], Simon Taylor <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13/08/2012 22:19, Ryan Leavengood wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > Back to the primary topic of this thread: I have some pending changes > > which redefine fShowLevel in BWindow to match the show_hide_level in > > the app_server, where 1 or more is hidden and 0 or less is shown. I > > also combined the app_server message for Show and Hide to be one > > message, AS_SHOW_HIDE_WINDOW, and the logic to actually show or hide > > the window is now in the app_server. > > [...] > > Also making this change in BWindow matches how the identically named > > fShowLevel in BView works. Given this I'm surprised it has been > > backwards for so long ;) > > I find the show_hide_level/AS_SHOW_HIDE_WINDOW naming very confusing. > Additionally with your changes when fShowLevel in BWindow is positive > the window is hidden? That's definitely backwards. I have no intuition > about what is forward and backward when a variable name includes two > completely opposite terms! Same thoughts here. > Can we change the name of the one in > app_server without affecting binary compatability? Absolutely. CU, Ingo