On 29/06/2008, Dylan Smith dylan.ah.smith@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Phil Krylov phil.krylov@gmail.com 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.