FW: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?

[Medland, Bill]

(Damn; Outlook bugs me)

-----Original Message-----
From: Medland, Bill 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:19 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Kalbermatter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:31 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 "Medland, Bill"  wrote
> > > On Wednesday, August 14, 2002 Ove Kaaven [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> 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:[e-mail]

Bill