"Evan Stade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see any drawbacks of calling into GDI to make paths, other
> than a slight performance decrease introduced by an extra level of
> indirection. Can anyone suggest another reason why this approach is
> flawed?
You can certainly use GDI, if you fin
On 6/26/07, Evan Stade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I was talking with Julliard about the implementation of paths in GDI+.
He suggested that the right way to do it was to build paths directly
(i.e. not calling into GDI). I'm not sure why calling into GDI is
undesirable. There are several re
Hi,
I was talking with Julliard about the implementation of paths in GDI+.
He suggested that the right way to do it was to build paths directly
(i.e. not calling into GDI). I'm not sure why calling into GDI is
undesirable. There are several reasons I'd like to use GDI paths:
* GDI and GDI+ pat
