From: Danny S. <dan...@cl...> - 2003-08-18 02:18:08
|
I've just noticed that although these symbolic version constants are now being used throughout the w32api, the header that defines them (w32api.h) is _nowhere_ included by another header. Should w32api.h be included from windows.h now? This will break some projects that try to avoid inclusion of windows.h but instead include just some of the base windows headers (windef.h, winbase.h). My feeling is that these mingw-specific defines may create unnecessary problems and that we should revert to just using the numeric constants directly in the w32api headers I'm also see some confusion about what these constant mean: eg a recent patch thad this in it: +#if _WIN32_IE>=_NT5 which is another reason why I'm beginning to find these undocumented constants ackward. Danny |
From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2003-08-18 12:41:17
|
Danny Smith wrote: > I've just noticed that although these symbolic version constants are > now being used throughout the w32api, the header that defines them > (w32api.h) is _nowhere_ included by another header. Should w32api.h be > included from windows.h now? This will break some projects that try to > avoid inclusion of windows.h but instead include just some of > the base windows headers (windef.h, winbase.h). > My intention was to include w32api.h in each header. > My feeling is that these mingw-specific defines may create unnecessary > problems and that we should revert to just using the numeric constants > directly in the w32api headers > > I'm also see some confusion about what these constant mean: eg a recent > patch thad this in it: > > +#if _WIN32_IE>=_NT5 > > which is another reason why I'm beginning to find these undocumented > constants ackward. > That is obviously wrong. I'm willing to revert and make the necessary modifications but I'd like to hear others opinions first. If you don't have a clue as to what this refers to, take a look at the w32api.h file from CVS. Earnie. |
From: Luke D. <cod...@ho...> - 2003-08-19 01:32:44
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Earnie Boyd" <ear...@ya...> To: <min...@li...> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] _NT4, _W95. _W98 etc version defines > Danny Smith wrote: > > I've just noticed that although these symbolic version constants are > > now being used throughout the w32api, the header that defines them > > (w32api.h) is _nowhere_ included by another header. Should w32api.h be > > included from windows.h now? This will break some projects that try to > > avoid inclusion of windows.h but instead include just some of > > the base windows headers (windef.h, winbase.h). > > > > My intention was to include w32api.h in each header. > > > My feeling is that these mingw-specific defines may create unnecessary > > problems and that we should revert to just using the numeric constants > > directly in the w32api headers > > > > I'm also see some confusion about what these constant mean: eg a recent > > patch thad this in it: > > > > +#if _WIN32_IE>=_NT5 > > > > which is another reason why I'm beginning to find these undocumented > > constants ackward. > > > > That is obviously wrong. I'm willing to revert and make the necessary > modifications but I'd like to hear others opinions first. If you don't > have a clue as to what this refers to, take a look at the w32api.h file > from CVS. > > Earnie. To avoid conflicts I would rather use the numbers but also have comments in one of the headers about the exact meaning of each combination of values, in even more detail than MSDN because they seem to have stopped documenting some things like WINVER. Luke |