[Qt-interest] Ignoring double-click in different widgets

[Tony Rietwyk]

Thanks to those for replying, and sorry for the delay getting back. 

John & Christopher: I've tried adding a delay, but it makes the application
feel very sluggish. 

Arnold: 'Educate users not to double-click'? I hope your are joking! The
application is used by school kids, and even older people like myself whose
fingers just don't always work as expected ;O)  Disabling the entire form
for half a second would lead to nasty flashing. 

I'll try overiding QApplication.event() and report back on the results. 

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com 
> [mailto:qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com] On Behalf Of Tony Rietwyk
> Sent: Friday, 17 July 2009 18:32
> To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
> Subject: [Qt-interest] Ignoring double-click in different widgets
> 
> 
> Hi Everybody, 
> 
> I have a large application with many forms in it.  Clicking 
> the OK button on form 1, closes form 1, then opens form 2.  
> If the user double-clicks the button, then the second click 
> occurs on form2 on whatever control happens to be at the same 
> location.  
> 
> The application is used to generate examination questions for 
> students to answer.  So on many forms it is really important 
> that the second click does NOT change the state of the second form. 
> 
> Is there an easy way in QApplication to ignore the second 
> click, if it is within the double-click timeout, but when the 
> current widget is different?  
> 
> I was thinking of subclassing QApplication, adding event() 
> override, listening for mouse down and maintaining a QPointer 
> to the last clicked widget, and the timestamp.  I am unsure 
> whether discarding the second click might create problems for 
> other situations like when the mouse is grabbed, or menu 
> pop-ups need to be cancelled. 
> 
> I am also not sure whether event() is the right method to 
> override in this case. 
> 
> Any other suggestions gladly accepted! 
> 
> I'm running 4.5.0 on XP sp3, though I am sure the same 
> problem existed in 4.3 & 4.4. 
> 
> Tony.