What's up with the windows headers?

[Stewart Gordon]

On 28/12/2012 04:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2012 17:44:09 Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> On 27/12/2012 13:52, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
<snip>
>>> We're not supporting anything older than XP, but we're still
>>> supporting XP, so whatever is done with the bindings needs to be in
>>> line with that.
>>
>> Are you referring to DMD or to the D language as a whole?  And where is
>> the official statement?
>
> I am referring to dmd, druntime, and Phobos. It was agreed upon by the Phobos
> devs in the newsgroup and/or in discussions in github pull requests, so it's
> essentially official, but we've never actually put it in the changelog or
> officially announced it in any way. I believe that it happened when we
> explicitly removed all of the Win9x support a while back.
<snip>

Thinking about it, we need to consider what third-party compiler vendors 
are going to do.  A standardised set of versions for all D compilers to 
use would be desirable.  Moreover, these third parties might want to use 
our bindings as well and thereby avoid duplication of effort.

But what is the oldest version of Windows we can reasonably expect 
anybody who writes a D2 compiler to want to support?  Getting rid of the 
Win9x support would simplify things considerably, but maybe we should 
still make Win2000 the default target version.  While it would seem 
silly to default to targeting a version that we officially don't 
support, it would make our bindings more portable and encourage Windows 
programmers to write portable code.  If that makes sense.

But this does suggest that, if nonetheless Walter decrees that the 
bindings distributed with DMD shall have XP as the minimum target 
version, meeting all of the objectives I've covered would mean creating 
a fork of the bindings project....

Stewart.