Steven Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --- Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You shouldn't do that kind of preventive version check, you should > > always call the function and then deal with failures appropriately. > > Sorry I am a little dense. If both functions are just no-ops on Win9x then > the app should not be > calling them anyway right? or if they are then in that mode they would be > expecting that return > value?
That's why the version checks are unnecessary. Apps that check the version won't use these functions anyway, and apps that don't check will just work. There's no point at all in adding extra checks to deliberately break a function, unless of course an app really depends on the broken behavior. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
