The future of the WindowsAPI bindings project
smjg_1998 at yahoo.com
Sun May 13 08:35:58 PDT 2012
On 13/05/2012 16:13, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
<snip excessive quote>
>> On this basis, what should we do? Indeed, what exactly is D2's official
>> minimum supported version of Windows? Me, NT4 or 2000?
> 2000, AFAIK. There is currently a pull request to repair Windows 2000 support in druntime.
That would be my inkling. But has it actually been stated somewhere, or are you just
>> Advantages of keeping the Win9x versioning in the bindings:
>> - Enables those D1 programmers that remain to write stuff that runs
>> under Win9x.
>> - Saves the effort of going through removing it
> I think we should just get rid of it. For D2, we'll have to remove the 9x stuff at some
> point anyway. And keeping the 9x stuff around for D1 is not worth it, since D1 is being
> discontinued kind-of soon. Besides, does anyone actually write Windows 9x programs in D
Probably nobody of significance writes programs to target Win9x now. But some people are
hesitant to move on from supporting a given OS version. If Mozilla and OpenOffice are
still claiming to support Win2000, there are probably people out there still claiming to
But any people who are programming D for Win9x will already have the bindings. And if
they do an SVN update and find that the protection against accidentally using Win2000+
APIs on which they relied has gone, they can update back to the old version. So maybe
you're right. Still, let's see what the others say.
> If someone really wants to, they can put the Windows 9x stuff into the D1 branch of
> druntime. But let's not put it into master.
There's no "D1 branch of druntime". Under D1, there's just Phobos.
More information about the Digitalmars-d