On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 02:59:35PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
> How do you plan on using image lists from user32? How will you make sure
> that the version 6 behaviour doesn't break older programs? It's these
> questions that made Microsoft move the controls to comctl32. Will we get
> ourselv
"Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is impossible. You can only subclass using a window with a
> different class name or a window of the same class name with the
> previous class unregistered and using the old window proc with identical
> class attributes. Since the class name i
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't oppose a comment itself, I don't like that it confuses people
by mentioning comctl32. That's simply not true.
Dmitry, please stop repeating misinformation. Go read the MSDN, I've
provided you with the relevant
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't oppose a comment itself, I don't like that it confuses people
> > by mentioning comctl32. That's simply not true.
>
> Dmitry, please stop repeating misinformation. Go read the MSDN, I've
> provided you with the relevant URLs. Here is the
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
-- since we don't have the same constrains as MS, and since we can't
afford to maintain two versions of the standard controls, we are
just going to extend the ones from user32 to the full capability
of the ones in comctl32 ver. 6. As such, it make sense to audit
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 07:32:18PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> I didn't oppose a comment itself, I don't like that it confuses people
> by mentioning comctl32. That's simply not true.
Dmitry, please stop repeating misinformation. Go read the MSDN, I've
provided you with the relevant URLs. Her
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:18:50AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Such comments do suffer from another problem. They tend to fall out of
> date. For that reason alone I'm not sure this comment is a good idea.
> Otherwise, we get a future commit that changes something, but neglects
> to update t
"Shachar Shemesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But how would someone reading the comment find the docs?
By searching MSDN. The docs are being changed everytime, and providing
even an URL one can't guarantee that the address will exist next time
you try to access it.
> Especially if
> the code i
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I didn't oppose a comment itself, I don't like that it confuses people
by mentioning comctl32. That's simply not true. I'd suggest to omit that
single line of the comment, that's all. Again, that's the user32 code,
and it really doesn't matter where MS has decided to put the
"Shachar Shemesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, Dimi used version 6.0 of the comctl32.dll documentation.
> It can hardly be his fault that that's where the docs for button
> controls are. I don't think any amount of patch sending or arguing on
> our part is going to persuade Micros
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've explained that already: the comment's purpose is to identify
the *documentation* that the code has been audited against. Which
is the commctl 6.0 documentation. This is where MS says the standard
controls reside in XP, wh
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've explained that already: the comment's purpose is to identify
> the *documentation* that the code has been audited against. Which
> is the commctl 6.0 documentation. This is where MS says the standard
> controls reside in XP, what's the problem?
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:19:10AM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Again, now MS documents all controls together, please check out the
> > on line MSDN.
>
> How could that matter where MS does document things? That fact changes
> nothing in the
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, now MS documents all controls together, please check out the
> on line MSDN.
How could that matter where MS does document things? That fact changes
nothing in the actual control functionality or DLL ownership.
user32 is a low level DLL which
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:58:14PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> No, your comment is not OK.
Actually, it is. Check out the URL for the button docs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/platform/commctls/buttons/buttons.asp
See? Button is under commctls.
>
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:39:24PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That was true up until Windows XP. All of the built-in user32 controls
> > have now been copied into comctl32 and extended.
>
> I can't believe that a simple win32 program lin
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think they just made a copy into comctl32, but this is more of a gut
> feel than anything else :) Anyway, MS now documents the standard controls
> together with the common ones (which makes sense, logically they belong
> together, they are all cont
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:39:24PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> I can't believe that a simple win32 program linked against user32 only
> under XP starts to depend on comctl32 as well. user32 in XP can't depend
> on comctl32 too. "Button", "listbox", "combobox" and others were always
> a part of
"Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Button" is a built-in user32 control and has nothing to do with comctl32
> >at all. Same for all other controls in the dlls/user/ subdirectory.
> >
> >
>
> That was true up until Windows XP. All of the built-in user32 controls
> have now been co
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ * This code was audited for completeness against the documented features
+ * of Comctl32.dll version 6.0 on Oct. 3, 2004, by Dimitrie O. Paun.
"Button" is a built-in user32 control and has nothing to do with comctl32
at
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + * This code was audited for completeness against the documented features
> + * of Comctl32.dll version 6.0 on Oct. 3, 2004, by Dimitrie O. Paun.
"Button" is a built-in user32 control and has nothing to do with comctl32
at all. Same for all other c
21 matches
Mail list logo
