Yet another effort at translating the Win32 API headers

[Stewart Gordon]

John C wrote:
> "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:e10hmd$265q$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> <snip>
>> And I'm not sure if the largeint stuff is necessary at all.  I suppose 
>> there's no point in translating largeint.h, as it's all stuff that D has 
>> built in.  But do we need to keep the LARGE_INTEGER and ULARGE_INTEGER 
>> structures (defined in winnt.h) for compatibility?
> 
> Can't these just be changed to long and ulong? 

That's what I'd begun to think.  But it depends on:

- whether the Windows calling/name mangling convention relies on the 
distinction between structs and primitive types that have the same size

- whether there are enough Windows programmers out there who rely on the 
  quick access to the high and low dwords that the LARGE_INTEGER and 
ULARGE_INTEGER structures provide (but considering that casts, bitmasks 
and bitshifts are always available....)

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.