1. RE: Suggestion for 2.4 -- it's not too late!
Robert Craig wrote:
> I can see only a *tiny* difference between the two GUI versions
> (testing on Judith's IDE).
> exw has always been a 32-bit program and has never
> run on Windows 3.1
Then it shouldn't have a 3.x subsystem version number. Windows 95/98/Me
treats applications differently based on their subsystem version
numbers. In case you've forgotten, all of these "quirks" are listed
here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/win9x/verdiff_41o3.asp
The "tiny" visual differences are only part of it.
But I believe the point here should be:
If Euphoria is not intended to be run on Windows 3.1 (presumably with
the 32-bit extension package Win32s), then it shouldn't have a subsystem
version number of 3.1. We already know that changing it only gets rid
of the aforementioned quirks and doesn't break anything, so why not just
distribute it as a 4.0 app?
-- Brian
2. RE: Suggestion for 2.4 -- it's not too late!
>
> But I believe the point here should be:
> If Euphoria is not intended to be run on Windows 3.1 (presumably with
> the 32-bit extension package Win32s), then it shouldn't have a subsystem
>
> version number of 3.1. We already know that changing it only gets rid
> of the aforementioned quirks and doesn't break anything, so why not just
>
> distribute it as a 4.0 app?
>
I agree -- what is the point exactly of having it have a 3.1 version
number? I have noticed my Windows programs are also "better behaved"
once they have been converted. It seems confusing and unnecessary to
have the 3.1 at all.
