Re: Add WM_GETOBJECT definition, remove WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED define

[Robert North]

Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry-at-baikal.ru |Wine Mailing Lists| wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Platform SDK defines WM_GETOBJECT as 0x003d and doesn't have a
>  message with value 0x003c at all. WM_GETOBJECT is used by Active
>  Accessibility to retrieve an interface pointer from a window.
>
> Changelog: Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> Add WM_GETOBJECT
>  definition, remove WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED define.
>
> diff -up cvs/hq/wine/include/winuser.h wine/include/winuser.h ---
>  cvs/hq/wine/include/winuser.h 2005-01-10 13:55:58.000000000 +0800 +++
>  wine/include/winuser.h 2005-01-14 16:23:38.000000000 +0800 @@ -985,8
>  +985,8 @@ BOOL WINAPI SetSysColors(INT,cons #define
>  WM_COMPAREITEM 0x0039 #define WM_TESTING 0x003a
>
> -#define WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED 0x003c -#define
>  WM_OTHERWINDOWDESTROYED 0x003d

I thought this removal looked a bit suspicious...
So, I did a quick google for WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED
, and there seems to be a consensus that  these two messages are defined 
as follows:

WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED    0x00000042
WM_OTHERWINDOWDESTROYED 0x00000043

What do you think?
Should google be trusted?

P.S. If yo do the google search, there's a link to a Russian windows 
internals book that
may shed further light on these methods.

Bye
    -Rob.

Add WM_GETOBJECT definition, remove WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED define

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Robert North" <7ownq0k402(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:
> I thought this removal looked a bit suspicious...
> So, I did a quick google for WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED
> , and there seems to be a consensus that  these two messages are defined 
> as follows:
>
> WM_OTHERWINDOWCREATED    0x00000042
> WM_OTHERWINDOWDESTROYED 0x00000043
>
> What do you think?
> Should google be trusted?

I'd agree if that messages were really used somewhere, but since they are not
even documented I'd not bother too much.

-- 
Dmitry.