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

On 11/22/2016 5:00 AM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 13/11/16 21:17, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> Okay; from a maintenance perspective, it makes little difference to
>> me whether a small subset of the content remains in <winable.h>,
>> (factored out of <winuser.h>, and replaced by a "#include
>> <winable.h> therein), or the factoring goes the other way, (leaving
>> <winable.h> as an empty stub, which does no more than emit an
>> "obsolete header" warning, followed by a "#include <winuser.h>").
> 
> Further inspection of <winuser.h> reveals three other headers containing
> duplicate code ... <winable.h>, <dbt.h>, and <pbt.h>.  Of these, I have
> refactored <dbt.h>, such that <winuser.h> may now include it to retrieve
> just the formerly duplicated content.
> 
> <winable.h> and <pbt.h> both appear to have been declared "obsolete", by
> Microsoft, (indeed, MSDN doesn't seem to mention <pbt.h> at all), so I
> propose to provide an "obsolete.h.in" template, and let make translate
> that into a pair of stubs, to emit a warning, then include <winuser.h>.
> 

Sounds like the correct way to do this to me.

-- 
Earnie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------