On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:

> (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
>
> So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...)

On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed.  Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen?

-Steve

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>   As most ranges are structs (and rightfully
> so, who wants to call 3 virtual functions every loop!), they would have to be wrapped under the current compiler. Or am I missing something else?

Yes, some wrapping would have to be done. Hopefully it will simple enough to keep things appealingly easy:

obj.toString(dynaRange(range));


Andrei

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:
> 
>> (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
>>
>> So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...)
> 
> On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed.  Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen?

Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles.

I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging?

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
>>>
>>> So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...)
>>  On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed.  Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen?
>
> Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles.
>
> I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging?

It might be useful if you accidentally start dragging the wrong thing, and then realize because you are dragging the wrong picture/text/etc.

But my point was really: you complained that you couldn't see the target because the picture is covering it.  My experience is that I can clearly see the target because the picture is translucent (I can see the target "underneath" the picture).

-Steve

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:

>>> (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
>
> Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles.
>
> I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging?

Middle-click.

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
>>>
>>> So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...)
>>  On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed.  Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen?
>
> Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles.
>
> I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging?

One thing that does annoy me is if you are doing this over a slow RDP link, the eye candy isn't worth it.

I was never a huge fan of application themes.  I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can.  I think it has been discussed before that most video editors have the slickest GUI, with real-looking knobs and "led's", but the video editing part of it is buggy as hell.

-Steve

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Yes. The way it should be is not with sink, but with the standard output iterator method put().
> 
> void streamOut(T, R)(T object, R range)
> {
>     foreach(x; a) range.put(x);
>     range.put(b);
>     range.put(c);
> }

// object.d
class Object
{
	void streamOut(R)(R range);
}

No?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Christopher Wright <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Yes. The way it should be is not with sink, but with the standard output
>> iterator method put().
>>
>> void streamOut(T, R)(T object, R range)
>> {
>>    foreach(x; a) range.put(x);
>>    range.put(b);
>>    range.put(c);
>> }
>
> // object.d
> class Object
> {
>        void streamOut(R)(R range);
> }
>
> No?

No.  Templated methods are not virtual.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.usux6bskeav7ka@steves.networkengines.com...
>
> I was never a huge fan of application themes.  I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can.
>

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about modern software. I can't really do the subject justice without delving into a giant pile of expletives. But worse still is when they decide to go and piss all over not just standard looks, but also standard behaviors. Like how the Win build of iTunes will still ignore/"eat" any click that brings it to the foreground. If I wanted that behavior I'd be running a Mac.

The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that "close" and "the 'close' button" should mean "don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead". That should be a firing squad offense ;) Joking aside though, any of these are guaranteed ways to make me lose any and all respect for a piece of software and its developers, especially if they're arrogant enough to provide no way to turn such things off.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.usux6bskeav7ka@steves.networkengines.com...
>> I was never a huge fan of application themes.  I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can.
>>
> 
> That's one of my biggest pet peeves about modern software. I can't really do the subject justice without delving into a giant pile of expletives. But worse still is when they decide to go and piss all over not just standard looks, but also standard behaviors. Like how the Win build of iTunes will still ignore/"eat" any click that brings it to the foreground. If I wanted that behavior I'd be running a Mac.
> 
> The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that "close" and "the 'close' button" should mean "don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead". That should be a firing squad offense ;)

I'd be killing my IM client constantly if not for that feature. I pretty much expect it of any application that's meant to be running for a long time and only rarely needing user interaction (such as a bittorrent client).