On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:39:24PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I can't believe that a simple win32 program linked against user32 only under XP starts to depend on comctl32 as well. user32 in XP can't depend on comctl32 too. "Button", "listbox", "combobox" and others were always a part of user32, moving them into comctl32 would break a lot of apps. Perhaps comctl32 simply subclasses standard user32 controls and adds "skinning" for them?
I think they just made a copy into comctl32, but this is more of a gut feel than anything else :) Anyway, MS now documents the standard controls together with the common ones (which makes sense, logically they belong together, they are all controls after all), so my comment is OK for its purpose (which is to correctly identify the piece of documentation that the audit was against).