In the winsamp.d file, CreateWindowEx is used to create the main window, and if you change the dwStyle parameter from "WS_THICKFRAME | WS_MAXIMIZEBOX | WS_MINIMIZEBOX | WS_SYSMENU | WS_VISIBLE" to just "WS_SYSMENU | WS_BORDER" the window will be created without a border at all. I tried this in an equivalent C program and the window is created properly with a border.

This bug is especially annoying for me because I want to create a window with a border that is not resizable, and this bug happens in my own windows D programs as well.

Yeah, we probably need a whole new win32 headers for D.  This link http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html should take you to a better one.   That might be the problem.  The ones in the distribution were converted by hand and its possible a slipup occurred..

Sean

"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu6rpn$8jf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In the winsamp.d file, CreateWindowEx is used to create the main window,
and if
> you change the dwStyle parameter from "WS_THICKFRAME | WS_MAXIMIZEBOX | WS_MINIMIZEBOX | WS_SYSMENU | WS_VISIBLE" to just "WS_SYSMENU | WS_BORDER"
the
> window will be created without a border at all. I tried this in an
equivalent C
> program and the window is created properly with a border.
>
> This bug is especially annoying for me because I want to create a window
with a
> border that is not resizable, and this bug happens in my own windows D
programs
> as well.

In article <bu7tro$25lr$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
>
>Yeah, we probably need a whole new win32 headers for D.  This link http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html should take you to a better one.   That might be the problem.  The ones in the distribution were converted by hand and its possible a slipup occurred..
>
>Sean
>
>"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu6rpn$8jf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In the winsamp.d file, CreateWindowEx is used to create the main window,
>and if
>> you change the dwStyle parameter from "WS_THICKFRAME | WS_MAXIMIZEBOX | WS_MINIMIZEBOX | WS_SYSMENU | WS_VISIBLE" to just "WS_SYSMENU | WS_BORDER"
>the
>> window will be created without a border at all. I tried this in an
>equivalent C
>> program and the window is created properly with a border.
>>
>> This bug is especially annoying for me because I want to create a window
>with a
>> border that is not resizable, and this bug happens in my own windows D
>programs
>> as well.
>
>

Im not sure that its the import files, because I even used the style parameter as a hex number literal from the .h files and it still wouldn't work. I reckon its a compiler issue. I cant wait for dmd 0.79!

"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu87r8$2m91$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bu7tro$25lr$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
> >"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu6rpn$8jf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> In the winsamp.d file, CreateWindowEx is used to create the main
window,
> >and if
> >> you change the dwStyle parameter from "WS_THICKFRAME | WS_MAXIMIZEBOX | WS_MINIMIZEBOX | WS_SYSMENU | WS_VISIBLE" to just "WS_SYSMENU |
WS_BORDER"
> >the
> >> window will be created without a border at all. I tried this in an
> >equivalent C
> >> program and the window is created properly with a border.
> >>
> >> This bug is especially annoying for me because I want to create a
window
> >with a
> >> border that is not resizable, and this bug happens in my own windows D
> >programs
> >> as well.
>
> >Yeah, we probably need a whole new win32 headers for D.  This link http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html should take you to a better one.   That might be the problem.  The ones in the distribution were converted by hand and its possible a slipup occurred..
> >
> >Sean
>
> Im not sure that its the import files, because I even used the style
parameter
> as a hex number literal from the .h files and it still wouldn't work. I
reckon
> its a compiler issue. I cant wait for dmd 0.79!

What would make you suspect the compiler?

Sean