For Information Only
Bill Medland medbi01@accpac.com wrote in article 01c10025$bb647f00$6f0c10ac@medbi01...
Can anyone shed any light on this?
If I take Petzold's POPPAD1 project and slightly modify it so that the style is WS_CHILD | WS_BORDER | WS_VISIBLE | ES_AUTOHSCROLL and then spy on the WM_NCCREATE and WM_CREATE it tells me that the style passed in is WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW | WS_CHILDWINDOW | WS_VISIBLE | ES_AUTOHSCROLL which is not the same thing.
Does anyone know if a. The Windows Spy++ is telling fibs b. (Win95) CreateWindow patches them up in some way.
- (Why I was even looking at 1)
In the application I am working on we open Edit controls almost as above inside dialogs and they appear with a single pixel solid frame under Windows whereas under Wine they appear with a 2-pixel sunken frame.
There
are several changes I can make in the controls/edit.c to get the same behaviour under Wine but so far they all "mess up" normal sunken ones.
(Under windows the resulting windows end up with zero extended style and 50000088 style.)
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Bill
Guess what. Microsoft Spy++ lies!!
When it displays the parameters of the WM_CREATE and WM_NCCREATE messages it gives the actual pointer value and also the contents pointed to by that pointer. In general it is correct but for the style and extended style it doesn't give the hex value; it goes ahead and politely translates it for you into WS_VISIBLE, WS_BORDER etc. However it gets it wrong. You can see that it is wrong by 1. creating your own class and a window of that class and see what it sends you or 2. get the source code for the original spy program, modifying it a little and using it.
Of course you can't get hold of the source for spy++ and correct it, as far as I am aware. (I'm getting to like this Open Source idea!!)
I wonder how many other lies spy++ tells us.
Bill