[Fwd: Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value]

2008-07-04 Thread James McKenzie
forgot to hit the Reply-All button... Original Message Phil Krylov wrote: > On 03/07/2008, Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dylan, > > > > > > - if (!editor->bEmulateVersion10 || (e

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value

2008-07-03 Thread Phil Krylov
On 03/07/2008, Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Dylan, > > > > - if (!editor->bEmulateVersion10 || (editor->nEventMask & ENM_UPDATE)) > > + if (!editor->dwEmulatedVersion || (editor->nEventMask & ENM_UPDAT

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value

2008-07-03 Thread Dylan Smith
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dylan, > > - if (!editor->bEmulateVersion10 || (editor->nEventMask & ENM_UPDATE)) > + if (!editor->dwEmulatedVersion || (editor->nEventMask & ENM_UPDATE)) > > This change is incorrect, as dwEmulatedVersion is never set to

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value

2008-07-03 Thread Juan Lang
Hi Dylan, - if (!editor->bEmulateVersion10 || (editor->nEventMask & ENM_UPDATE)) + if (!editor->dwEmulatedVersion || (editor->nEventMask & ENM_UPDATE)) This change is incorrect, as dwEmulatedVersion is never set to 0. I believe you mean if (editor->dwEmulatedVersion > 0x100 || ... I have to a

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

2008-07-01 Thread Phil Krylov
On 29/06/2008, Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Phil Krylov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

2008-06-29 Thread Dylan Smith
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Phil Krylov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 versi

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

2008-06-29 Thread Phil Krylov
2008/6/27 Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Currently msftedit.dll is implemented by loading riched20.dll and then > riched20.dll registers the classes that msftedit.dll normally register. > Native msftedit.dll appears to be a full implementation of the richedit > controls, rather than a wrapper.

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

2008-06-27 Thread Chris Ahrendt
Dylan Smith wrote: > Currently msftedit.dll is implemented by loading riched20.dll and then > riched20.dll registers the classes that msftedit.dll normally register. > Native msftedit.dll appears to be a full implementation of the richedit > controls, rather than a wrapper. > > Here are the opt

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

2008-06-27 Thread Phil Krylov
Hi, 2008/6/27 Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > riched20.dll is implementing all the versions of richedit controls (1.0, 2.0, > 3.0, and 4.1), so it is better to store the version that is being emulated. > The bEmulateVersion10 value is replaced with dwEmulatedVersion. I thought it implements 1.

Re: richedit: Store richedit version rather than boolean bEmulateVersion10 value.

2008-06-27 Thread Dylan Smith
Currently msftedit.dll is implemented by loading riched20.dll and then riched20.dll registers the classes that msftedit.dll normally register. Native msftedit.dll appears to be a full implementation of the richedit controls, rather than a wrapper. Here are the options that I can think of: 1. We co