Re: RFC: Why these <winuser.h> vs. <winable.h> conflicts?

On 11/10/2016 8:29 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> 
> I can envision two possible stratagems for tackling this:
> 
> 1) Make <winable.h> obsolete in MinGW, while retaining a stub which
> emits an appropriate warning, and then includes <winuser.h> instead.
> 

My vote is for this one.  The current MSDN documentation states Win2K
for the minimum supported use. It also states that Winuser.h should be
included by including Windows.h. Also from[1] we have the following
quote which suggests we just remove winable.h:

winable.h was moved from the Windows SDK in July 2005 because
functionality was duplicated in winuser.h. It was determined at that
time that efforts would be better spent on updating winuser.h to Windows
Vista-level functionality rather than updating the functionality of both
files.

[1]https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en-US/ee57cc38-1dc6-4a5f-b7e3-1f16dbd91b83/missing-winableh?forum=windowssdk

-- 
Earnie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi