On 29/06/2008, Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Phil Krylov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course this looks most sane. But I'm asking if you're going to make > > use of the dwEmulatedVersion other than "< 0x200"? That is, under what > > circumstances we should emulate version 2 or 3 when we have support > > for version 5? It's interesting to me, because it seemed to me that > > the native versions (starting with 2.0) are very compatible to each > > other. > > > > -- Ph. > > > I know that versions 2 and 3 are very compatible with, since they register > the same class and dll name. Richedit 4.1 however uses msftedit.dll instead, > which means that programs would need to explicitlydecide which version > they are using depending on which dll they load and which class they specify. > > Certainly there are differences between richedit 3 and 4.1, but I don't know > if > programs would depend on these differences.
OK I see your point, and after hitting a very interesting blog on RichEdit, I even agree that the exact version number may be needed. http://blogs.msdn.com/murrays/archive/2006/10/14/richedit-versions.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/murrays/archive/2006/10/20/some-richedit-history.aspx BTW they say that the DLL name for versions 5.0, 5.1, and 6.0 is riched20.dll again. -- Ph.