richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.
phil.krylov at gmail.com
Tue Jul 1 07:15:37 CDT 2008
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.
BTW they say that the DLL name for versions 5.0, 5.1, and 6.0 is
More information about the wine-devel