On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <[email protected]> wrote: > It has always pained me to see lazarus' LCL re-introducing the Windows API > to such an extent. > > If I was planning Lazarus' future (for clarity: I am not), I would lay out > for the LCL:
People need those routines to port component packages mostly. The Windows API routines are not an end in themselves and they are also not to be removed (without generating a lot of trouble for people that need them). The solution is much simpler and elegant: simply provide as well a native LCL class or extension of existing classes to also implement the functionality natively in the LCL as well. This can internally refer to the WinAPI routines, so we don't need 2 implementations of the same thing while exposing 2 APIs for it. I don't see why the mere existence of the WinAPI routines is an issue. While writing the book I used those APIs almost never, you can pretty much ignore them and if you find yourself in a situation where you can't ignore them it's just because we still miss some code to also implement them in LCL style. -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
