Alexander Lamaison wrote: > shouldn't the question be why are we including windows.h rather > than the winsock header?
We want some stuff from windows.h, and to me it seems appropriate to include it explicitly, but of course we could go the other way and only include winsock2.h and rely on it including windows.h. Matter of taste? //Peter _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
