(Damn; Outlook bugs me) -----Original Message----- From: Medland, Bill Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:19 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rolf Kalbermatter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: what's with WS_OVERLAPPED? > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 "Medland, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > > >> On Wednesday, August 14, 2002 Ove Kaaven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > wrote: > > <snip> > > >> WS_OVERLAPPED is in practice considered the absence of the > >> WS_POPUP and > >> WS_CHILD flags, I believe. > > > >Thanks Ove; that'll do for a working hypothesis. (I wish > Microsoft would > be > >consistant) > > > >Just for the record it is clearly more complex than that. I > guess since > >Microsoft wrote it we can trust Spy++ a little. I have seen > spy++ declare > >that a "tooltips" class window (style 0x84800000/00000088) has style > >WS_OVERLAPPED whereas a "tooltips_class32" class window (style > >0x84800003/00000088) doesn't. > > Hmm, this is just a wild guess but couldn't it be that the > WS_OVERLAPPED > style applies only to the lower word of the windows style. > Windows coming > from 16bit DOS it wouldn't be surprising if the original > windows style was > 16 bit only as well. Either that or Spy++ has a bug, even > though you trust > it so much ;-). Except all the general style stuff is in the top word; the only difference between the two styles, the 3, is two TTS_* toolbar style; generally the stuff in the low word is, I believe, control-specific. I honestly think that it is not so much that Spy++ has a bug as that it is based on some knowledge within Microsoft that describes how they have worked around the mess they have generated over the years. > > Rolf Kalbermatter > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Bill
