> The only thing I don't like in my proposal is the win32 name, namely > the 32. I guess Win64 will go in the same namespace, as well as win16. > This is confusing. What about winxx or even better winapi?
Windows uses the same header files for both Win32 and Win64. It is Win32 if _WIN32 is defined and Win64 if _WIN64 is defined. On 64 bit platforms we can never get 100% Win32 source compabillity because of compiler problems. If fact we can't get 100% Win64 support either for the same reasons so I guess Wine on 64-bit platforms will be some kind of pseudo mode. So we probably should have the same include directory for Win32 and Win64. As for the name well I think I like "windows" best. > > > plus a bunch of other things (like making it easy to use other > > > headers for the Win32 API, etc). And best of all, it seems to > > > be easily implementable, no? > > > > "mv" is your friend however the CVS versioning doesn't like > it though... > > We don't have to move anything in the tree, just modify where > we install > stuff. Of course, this means that you will not be able to use > your tree > include files in all cases, but I think it's good as a start. Perhaps.
