(Damn; Outlook bugs me)
-----Original Message----- From: Medland, Bill Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:19 AM To: 'rolf.kalbermatter@citeng.com' Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
-----Original Message----- From: Rolf Kalbermatter [mailto:r.kalbermatter@hccnet.nl] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:31 PM To: Bill.Medland@accpac.com Cc: wine-devel@winehq.com Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 "Medland, Bill" Bill.Medland@accpac.com wrote
On Wednesday, August 14, 2002 Ove Kaaven [mailto:ovehk@ping.uio.no]
wrote:
<snip>
WS_OVERLAPPED is in practice considered the absence of the WS_POPUP and WS_CHILD flags, I believe.
Thanks Ove; that'll do for a working hypothesis. (I wish
Microsoft would be
consistant)
Just for the record it is clearly more complex than that. I
guess since
Microsoft wrote it we can trust Spy++ a little. I have seen
spy++ declare
that a "tooltips" class window (style 0x84800000/00000088) has style WS_OVERLAPPED whereas a "tooltips_class32" class window (style 0x84800003/00000088) doesn't.
Hmm, this is just a wild guess but couldn't it be that the WS_OVERLAPPED style applies only to the lower word of the windows style. Windows coming from 16bit DOS it wouldn't be surprising if the original windows style was 16 bit only as well. Either that or Spy++ has a bug, even though you trust it so much ;-).
Except all the general style stuff is in the top word; the only difference between the two styles, the 3, is two TTS_* toolbar style; generally the stuff in the low word is, I believe, control-specific. I honestly think that it is not so much that Spy++ has a bug as that it is based on some knowledge within Microsoft that describes how they have worked around the mess they have generated over the years.
Rolf Kalbermatter mailto:rolf.kalbermatter@citeng.com
Bill