Il 05/02/2009 15.43, Viktor Szakáts ha scritto:
as possible WINAPI interface. If in doubt I'd personally in all cases prefer to favour the "Harbour feel". "Harbour feel" means that .prg programmer shouldn't be able to cause a GPF/memory corruption using .prg level WINAPI calls.This is ok for me, just to decide if we have to keep positional order, also if then we ignore length, but only to have closest implementation to ms syntax and use their docs as valid reference.Sticking to original MS syntax only makes sense if this can be more or less consistently followed as a rule, at least with most of the functions without making .prg level programming too cumbersome. WINAPI users have to decide whether this is a reasonable goal. If possible to do without major drawbacks, it should be done, as it makes the whole layer well documented by existing MS docs, and it also clears up WINAPI developer from making difficult decisions on hiding details.
This is exactly what I mean
Anyhow, in the case of having a fully synced WINAPI layer, it is still possible to add extra Harbour functions (even on top of that) to help accessing commonly used Windows functionality in a higher level, potentially friendlier way.
And this is the scope of w_*.c files that, as I wrote in previous mail, will contains upper level functions: "After these we will have win_*.c files that will contains higher level functions (like: DrawTransparentBitmap() functions that uses more than single win API). Those functions will be prefixed with WIN_."
Best regards Francesco _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
