On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:40:55PM -0800, Ken Coleman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 01:30:32PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > Ken Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > >2. I wanted to verify the ordinal numbers, so I booted up a WinNT 4.0
> > >machine to use DUMPBIN. What I found was that all of the ordinal
> > >numbers seem to be wrong - the MapVirtualKey* funtions all have ordinals
> > >> 400 according to DUMPBIN, but the values in the comments of
> > >windows/input.c put them in the range 383-385. Are the comments wrong?
> > >Does it even matter? Also, they seem to be out of order -
> > >MapVirtualKeyExW should go between MapVirtualKeyExA and MapVirtualKeyW
> > >according to DUMPBIN, but there's no empty ordinal in between based on
> > >the comments.
> >
> > As there was explained several times, under Windows all functions, exported
> > by name can be assigned an arbitrary ordinal name: those functions are not
> > supposed to be imported by ordinal. As confirmation for this statement serves
> > MS practice to have different ordinals for those functions for NT and 95/98.
> >
>
> I guess an obvious question is why do we even include the ordinals in comments
> in the source, if they don't really mean anything...
Probably because they are from the days before we had clarification
about that stuff...
Andreas Mohr
