Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:31:56 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: GetConsoleWindow
Message-ID: <20020905153156.GA17006@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3D74E346 DOT 53082DA7 AT yahoo DOT com> <3D7537F8 DOT 1050105 AT netscape DOT net> <3D754D71 DOT 9DB9EEDA AT yahoo DOT com> <20020904111259 DOT C1213 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20020904113230 DOT E1213 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3D75F865 DOT 27083D77 AT yahoo DOT com> <20020904150040 DOT H1213 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3D768405 DOT 122C3339 AT yahoo DOT com> <20020905121252 DOT B15737 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3D774D48 DOT 44F382AA AT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D774D48.44F382AA@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 08:25:44AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Well, yes, but for w32api that would not be logical.  At least this
>thread has pointed some doco weaknesses that I need to address.  Yes,
>if you want to use the newer API functions then you must be aware to
>set WINVER to the version you wish to support.  MS must do this for
>each generation of new compilers to support newer OS's.  If give the
>developer the freedom to not think about backward compatibility, and as
>evidenced there is little.  We are smarter than that, so we choose to
>let the developer set the version h[im|er]self, I.E.: the developer is
>forced to think about the new functionality w.r.t.  backward
>compatibility of older OS versions.

Is this decision documented somewhere?  It doesn't make sense to me
that w32api would be like Microsoft in every other way but this one.
And, somehow, I thought that as one of the main users of w32api, we
might get a vote in this.

Why throw a barrier in the way of someone who thinks that they've
found an alternative to MSVC?  You're guaranteeing that someone will
have to find the mingw mailing list and ask questions because things
are working differently than they expect.

cgf