| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not like they're ever going to change the definition of
WORD (knock on wood) -- but I guess it's proper to use them as if
their definitions might change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case it is not supported. If I am not mistaken, SWI-Prolog supports
Windows 2000, so there is no reason why Episode Browser shouldn't.
|
|
The user-defined conversion function makes the interface a lot simpler
AND safer.
|
|
It seems unnecessary to throw exceptions when simply checking whether
a library exists.
|
|
|
|
Next step is to allow a double click to reset the split to be
automatically resized.
|
|
|
|
I don't hate Hungarian notation. It has some very nice qualities. But
it also adds a lot of typing.
That said, not using it feels a bit... unsafe. I might go back on this
decision. We'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference in speed seems to be extremely minimal: a few
microseconds.
|
|
std::basic_string is nice, but it is not very ergonomic if everything
you really need is to automatically free C strings at end of scope.
I suppose I could have used std::unique_ptr for this, but I suspect
the ergonomics would be worse.
|
|
This style is more compact and quicker to read once you know what the
first two member in LVITEM are (mask and iItem).
|
|
This makes it much more ergonomic and less error-prone to look up list
view items.
|
|
I find it much simpler. It is very safe, as wszf only accepts
fixed-size arrays. There is, of course, the chance that swprintf_s
fails and writes nothing into the array. This can be handled by the
caller, if desired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The string arrays are static.
|
|
This has two benefits:
1. The for loop is avoided.
2. It is shorter.
The drawback is that it is a bit opaque. The order of the array
elements still matter, but now it is coupled to what is declared in
resource.h, a completely separate file. This makes it harder to change
resource.h.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though it is a fun challange in many ways, I think that,
realistically, it is probably not worth the complexity. The
Prolog backend isn't ANSI-compatible either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The resource IDs have been changed such that
* the first (least significant) half byte represents the "group",
* the second half byte represents the "subgroup", and
* the third and fourth half bytes uniquely identify the resource
within the group.
Combined with the use of a few helper macros, this makes the message
handling code a lot simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
See c6cd2f1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts much of 97f0a27.
1. It turns out not to be a good idea to resize the list view columns
based on the list view window's own rectangle, as it will change
depending on whether a scrollbar is visible. The problem is that
resizing the columns may add a horizontal scrollbar -- which in
turn may add a vertical scrollbar.
2. The WS_EX_CLIENTEDGE style does not look very good in "modern"
(non-classic) themes. In 97f0a27, I tried solving this by extending
the dimensions of the child windows such that their edges were
hidden. However, this type of overlapping causes problems with the
status bar. My new solution is to instead *reduce* the child
windows' dimensions. This achieves a visual impression similar to
the thicker (more well-designed) edges of the "classically themed"
list view control. To make it look even better, the main window
background is changed from COLOR_WINDOWFRAME (white) to
COLOR_WINDOW (light gray).
|
|
|
|
This incidentally removes the need for the variable
template introduced by 21e96c6. I'm sure it will be
needed at some point, though.
|
|
The variable template could be generalized like this:
template <auto F, auto... A> const auto cache = F(A...);
and instantiated like:
cache<GetSystemMetrics, SM_CXVSCROLL>
It would still be limited to constant function arguments, which
usually isn't a problem for GetSystemMetrics, but might be for
other functions.
|
|
If the main window exists, it is probably a good idea for the message
box to be owned by it. Otherwise, the user may continue to interact
with the main window. Of course, that could sometimes be a benefit,
but it SEEMS a bit unsafe... I might change this in the future.
|
|
No, not "awful", AWFUN!
Speaking of AWFUN, here is an alternative implementation of it:
#define AWFUN(t, f) cond_fun<t, f##A, f##W>
template <typename T, auto F, auto G>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_same_v<T, char>, decltype(F)> cond_fun = F;
template <auto F, auto G>
auto cond_fun<wchar_t, F, G> = G;
This implementation uses a variable template instead of a function
template, but I decided against it, as (at least I think) it would
instantiate useless variables that merely point to pre-existing API
functions. Like,
auto cond_fun__wchar_t__blablabla = MessageBoxW;
auto cond_fun__char__blablabla = MessageBoxA;
which is quite useless. Better to just have a constexpr function,
which the compiler may inline, return the real function pointer.
|
|
As the message box has no owner (because the main window may not be
initialized yet), it may be unclear which application is being
terminated.
|
|
|