8 Dec
2008
8 Dec
'08
12:06 a.m.
This makes no sense.
Can you please provide a specific example of what the API call was,
and what the invalid parameter was?
On 7-Dec-08, at 1:22 PM, Zachary Gorden wrote:
I suppose I should have phrased that statement better.
We know
Windows let that pass, and it was likely due to backwards
compatibility. But if that code was compiled using something like VC
++8, would it even be valid and produce a binary that functioned the
way you'd expect? Case in point, in Petzold's book, it talks about
ways to access the HI/LOW values to deal with the mousewheel, if I
recall correctly. If you tried to use that code and compile it in VC
++8, the resulting executable's mousewheel behavior would be messed
up. However, if you ran the executables, the mousewheel would
behave as expected. An instance of MS preserving backwards
compatibility due to sloppy/incorrect coding in old executables, but
also them not letting you continue to use that practice/method when
you're writing new code or recompiling the old code and essentially
targeting newer versions of Windows.
I suppose this boils down to what the app is, and what that app did
to allow it to take advantage of MS' maintaining backwards
compatibility. If we're going to also reproduce the worts, we need
to make sure we do so correctly.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ged <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Zachary Gorden wrote:
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Just because Windows was tolerant of this
specific sloppiness
doesn't mean
we should be.
I completely disagree.
We need to replicate the Windows API as closely as possible, warts
and all.
This is what compatibility is all about
Ged.
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev