Round-up of the recent WindowsAPI discussions from when I wasn't looking

[Stewart Gordon]

"Sascha Katzner (aka WeirdCat)" <sorry.no at spam.org> wrote in message 
news:fbmrb5$k6m$1 at digitalmars.com...
<snip>
> I (*He*) did translate vfw because I needed it for a project and
> the old file was indeed a disaster.  I don't think the file is
> obsolete, all the cap* functions are defined there, which you need
> for Webcams for example.  The translation was based on the windows
> header files from m$ (see below).

I've just found the message I was thinking of:

http://tinyurl.com/32fwus

But if no replacement API has been provided, it can't be obsolete. 
Moreover, I've just looked on MSDN, which still gives vfw as being the way 
to do video capture.  So Don must've been wrong.  You have a point there....

<snip>
> I think you should differentiate here if someone used the original
> windows header files only as documentation of windows functions and
> interfaces (like me or the MinGW Team), or if someone automatically
> translated the files via a tool.
>
> If you use them only as documentation and "translate" (a better
> word would be 'rewrite') everything by hand (you have to write your
> own comments!), no intellectual property from m$ should be harmed
> (*warning* I am no lawyer!).

I'm not sure I know what you mean.  Are you basically talking about 
extracting the structure definitions and function prototypes from the 
headers, and then putting them into new headers created from scratch?

Where does hand-tweaking someone else's headers fall into your argument? 
This is the approach I'm using.  I think there are also a few people running 
the headers through an automated tool and then hand-tweaking the output.

> Because this was the way, the MinGW Team created their header
> files, I realy see no reason that we couldn't go that way.

What is your source for this statement?

Stewart.