"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 situation: > -- in XP, there are *two* implementations of the standard controls: > the old one in user32, and a strict superset, in comctl32. > Applications can ask for the one in comctl32 by specifying so > in their manifest file. This is done so that applications continue > to run on older versions of Windows.
You still didn't provide anything to prove that comctl32 in XP simply does not subclass user32 button. I repeat that there is *one* button implementation is user32, and comctl32 most likely simply add theming to it by providing custom drawing code. That has nothing to do with statements you repeat, and the comments about comctl32 you have added to the *user32* code in Wine. > -- 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 them > against the comctl32 ver. 6 documentation. Once you really add button support to comctl32 you can safely add comments like the one you did there. But until then that's a pure speculation based on the MS documentation which was proved wrong many times already. -- Dmitry.
