[lazarus] GetWindowLong

[Shane Miller]

I agree that there should be no GTK or QT code in the winapi header file.  With the function GetWindowLong, all the code is found in the gtkwinapi file.  This will make it possible to do what wwe plan on doing. 

Eventually I would like to write the code to call X functions to get this information (in some cases) and bypass the gtk for certain things.  This would be more efficient and also work better because we could still use those functions in QT and such.

Shane


>>> Marc.Weustink at cuperus.nl 01/10/00 05:39AM >>>
[some recompilation]

From: Shane Miller [mailto:smiller at lakefield.net] 

+ From: "Marc Weustink" <weus at quicknet.nl>
+
+ > At 14:05 07-01-2000 -0600, Shane wrote:
+ >
+ > >Second, just setting those specific items as data won't work
+ > >because there are more than just those.  I just gave those as
+ > >an example.  there are a few more I would use so I was thinking
+ > >of storing the class which would encompass everything.
+ >
+ > Hmm... if I look at the winhelp there are only 6 more :-)
+ > But some of them you can't put them in the class.

[snip styles]

+ >
+ > seen this I think it makes not a big difference of storing
+ > them all, you have to store some of them anyhow. Besides that
+ > GetWindowLong is an API function and I think that it is not
+ > a good thing to mess up the LCL with these.
+ >
+ > Marc
+ >

+ Yes, I see there are only 6 more and I began adding them like you
+ suggested....
+ I'm not sure what you mean about messing up the LCL with
+ these though....

You all might have sometimes have an idea how to solve something, but you're
not complete finished with it. At such a moment it is hard for me to express
my thoughts in english and it might result in expressions which do not cover
the thoughts I have. This was an example of that.
In general one of the ideas I have for the far future (Lazarus starts to be
a design IDE) is to extract the winapi functs from LCL. I mean here that the
api is no part of LCL but has a life of its own. A requirement for this is
that there are no LCL dependencies in the winapi. The way everything is
implemented now, I think this is possible.
What's the fun of it? It gives cleaner code. All functionality is
implemented at their own level. It makes also porting easier.
I'm I dreaming? I don't know. As I said, it's one of these unfinished
thoughts and I haven't examined all pros and cons

Marc

_________________________________________________________________
     To unsubscribe: mail lazarus-request at miraclec.com with
                "unsubscribe" as the Subject
    archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus