richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

[Phil Krylov]

On 29/06/2008, Dylan Smith <dylan.ah.smith at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Phil Krylov <phil.krylov at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Of course this looks most sane. But I'm asking if you're going to make
>  > use of the dwEmulatedVersion other than "< 0x200"? That is, under what
>  > circumstances we should emulate version 2 or 3 when we have support
>  > for version 5? It's interesting to me, because it seemed to me that
>  > the native versions (starting with 2.0) are very compatible to each
>  > other.
>  >
>  > -- Ph.
>
>
> I know that versions 2 and 3 are very compatible with, since they register
>  the same class and dll name.  Richedit 4.1 however uses msftedit.dll instead,
>  which means that programs would need to explicitlydecide which version
>  they are using depending on which dll they load and which class they specify.
>
>  Certainly there are differences between richedit 3 and 4.1, but I don't know if
>  programs would depend on these differences.

OK I see your point, and after hitting a very interesting blog on
RichEdit, I even agree that the exact version number may be needed.

http://blogs.msdn.com/murrays/archive/2006/10/14/richedit-versions.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/murrays/archive/2006/10/20/some-richedit-history.aspx

BTW they say that the DLL name for versions 5.0, 5.1, and 6.0 is
riched20.dll again.

-- Ph.