Re: 3 Win32::API bugs

On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:19:21 +0200, bulk 88 <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----------------------------------------
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: 3 Win32::API bugs
>> Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:40:27 +0200
>> CC: [email protected]
>> From: [email protected]
>> If you can help, or you know someone who could,
>> please point them to https://github.com/cosimo/perl5-win32-api/
>>
>> I've been thinking for a while that handing over maintainership of
>> Win32::API would be a good idea.
>>
>> Anyone cares enough to step in?
>
> If I sent you a patch through RT fixing all those problems you could  
> apply it right? If so I'll work on one.

(cc'ing libwin32@, in case someone is also interested)

Yes, of course.

> I have a few questions though, maybe you can answer them. Why is there a  
> T_INTERGER and T_NUMBER flag? I see T_INTEGER is mapped to T_NUMBER. Why  
> did T_INTEGER ever exist? or is T_INTEGER just a 4 byte integer and  
> T_NUMBER is a 4/8 byte integer?

These implementation choices pre-date my involvement
with Win32::API, so I really don't know.

Maybe Aldo, the original author of Win32::API, remembers.

> How is the no short problem supposed to be fixed? Moving struct to  
> letter "T" would break too many grandfathered perl scripts right? So  
> should a short be "T" then?

I would definitely try to keep backward compatibility.

> Do you know what the undocumented T_POINTERPOINTER/letter 'B' is for?  
> I'm not going to remove it but just curious. I think its for a Call  
> parameter that looks like "[q|a string|]".

Pointer to a pointer (ex.: char**), or in this case AV**/SV** ?

-- 
Cosimo