FW: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
Bill.Medland at accpac.com
Fri Aug 16 10:21:10 CDT 2002
(Damn; Outlook bugs me)
From: Medland, Bill
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:19 AM
To: 'rolf.kalbermatter at citeng.com'
Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Kalbermatter [mailto:r.kalbermatter at hccnet.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:31 PM
> To: Bill.Medland at accpac.com
> Cc: wine-devel at winehq.com
> Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 "Medland, Bill" <Bill.Medland at accpac.com> wrote
> >> On Wednesday, August 14, 2002 Ove Kaaven [mailto:ovehk at ping.uio.no]
> >> 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
> >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
> 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 at citeng.com
More information about the wine-devel