Getting back into translating the Win32 headers - anyone?

[Don Clugston]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> <snip>
>>> (a) If the whole point of a module is to import other modules, then
>>> obviously the imports have to be public.
>>> (b) If qwert.h doesn't include yuiop.h, but yuiop.d is required for
>>> qwert.d to compile, then the import should be private.
>>> (c) This leaves the general case where a C header includes another.
>>>
>>> Should we make imports of kind (c) public or private?  Moreover, should
>>> we declare (b) and (c) imports using "private import" or simply 
>>> "import"?
>>
>> I think (c) should be private, except in a few rare cases where they 
>> are 'top-level' modules that do nothing except publically import other 
>> modules.
> 
> By (c), I actually meant that which doesn't fit under (a) or (b).  I 
> can't think of any instances in which a module does nothing but imports 
> other modules but that isn't the whole point of the module.

I think I created windows.core, which does that, but it's probably 
unique. I think we should try to eliminate all cases of (c), turning 
them into (a) or (b). What are the case (c)'s at the moment?

> <snip>
>>> We've less than 30 days to get it done and dusted if we're going to
>>> submit a full translation for DMD 1.0.  Even better would be if it can
>>> be got done by the time I go back to my immediate family for Christmas
>>> around the 20th.  So come on guys!
> 
> Good to know you're still here.  You used to be one of the most active 
> contributors to this project.  Hope you really are back!

I doubt I'll contribute much more to the Windows API project anytime 
before D 1.0, I'm too tied up in another D project.

A couple of suggestions, though:
* vfw is an obselete, buggy technology, and the MinGW header is a 
disaster area. I think we should just drop it.
* Some of the other MinGW header, like zmouse, are so incomplete 
there're probably not worth including.
* We don't need windowsx, either, it's just for C programmers without OO.