View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 28, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
I really hope druntime doesn't get one gigantic windows.d file. I
don't want to wait seconds for syntax highlighting to kick in because
a file is huge.
January 28, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
On Saturday, January 28, 2012 09:41:21 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I really hope druntime doesn't get one gigantic windows.d file. I
> don't want to wait seconds for syntax highlighting to kick in because
> a file is huge.

It will definitely be more organized than that. I would think that it would be 
organized along the lines of how the win32 API itself is organized, but I 
don't know. It probably also depends on what the current bindings project 
does. A giant windows.d would definitely be rejected though.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 28, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 20:37:04 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
> The files in the Windows API bindings project are translations 
> from the MinGW headers, which were created based on the 
> documentation (which explains the occasional errors). The MinGW 
> headers are public domain. Considering that MinGW is not an 
> obscure project, I think we're on safe legal ground here.

Things like CRITICAL_SECTION are documented as opaque structures.
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winembplatdev/thread/3856c437-9a7e-4315-a954-fc50e25a12f2
January 28, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
I also remember MinGW folks were asked about this, but they don't 
know, where the headers came from.
January 28, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
On Saturday, 28 January 2012 at 09:22:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2012 09:41:21 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> I really hope druntime doesn't get one gigantic windows.d 
>> file. I
>> don't want to wait seconds for syntax highlighting to kick in 
>> because
>> a file is huge.
>
> It will definitely be more organized than that. I would think 
> that it would be organized along the lines of how the win32 API 
> itself is organized, but I don't know. It probably also depends 
> on what the current bindings project does. A giant windows.d 
> would definitely be rejected though.

http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/browser/trunk/win32/windows.d
January 28, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
On 1/28/12, Vladimir Panteleev <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/browser/trunk/win32/windows.d

Well sheeeit, somehow I never noticed that file being there.
January 29, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
Am 28.01.2012, 11:22 Uhr, schrieb Kagamin <spam@here.lot>:

> I also remember MinGW folks were asked about this, but they don't know,  
> where the headers came from.

I understand that Microsoft prefers Visual Studio to be used with one of  
their compilers, but you can't honestly sue anyone nowadays for copying  
headers to interface with the OS. It is Windows, the most used OS on  
consumer PCs. Who's gain was it if a major part of open source software  
was locked out because they couldn't port the application due to missing  
OS headers. If you always looked only on the legal side of things, you  
would be allowed and disallowed absurd things:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/nov/07/uk.queensspeech20072
The other ingredient is common sense. - So you don't buy Visual Studio,  
which may be a loss for MS, if those OSS developers would have switched to  
Windows, bought VS etc... in the other case, Windows loses popularity as a  
platform, because a lot of software wont be ported. With the background of  
the legal debate about making IE4 a part of the operating system I'd  
assume that some degree of freedom and choice of software is today  
considered almost as valuable as a formal copyright in a header file.
It would be different if WINE somehow got the Windows source code and was  
only through this event becoming an alternative that made Windows  
obsolete. But I think we had the header/interface discussion here already  
:)
January 29, 2012
Re: Windows API and druntime/Phobos
Am 28.01.2012, 09:41 Uhr, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic  
<andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com>:

> I really hope druntime doesn't get one gigantic windows.d file. I
> don't want to wait seconds for syntax highlighting to kick in because
> a file is huge.

No, it should be done like everywhere else where the IDEs have no problem  
dealing with the Windows headers. C++, Delphi, ... . I think COM and  
WinSock are usually separate, whereas user32 and kernel32 are commonly  
imported through one file. I may be wrong. If a particular IDE/editor is  
slow it must be fixed :)
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home