Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-

dotgnu-general

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-

From:	Ian MacLean
Subject:	Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?
Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:44:53 +0900
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030924 Thunderbird/0.3

Just to be clear - You're talking about WFC right ? - the ms java uitoolkit - not 'MFC' the aging c++ ui toolkit because they are two verydifferent apis.

The result of which I provided in my last message. What I didn't provide wasthe days and days of looking through the API convincing ourselves that it wasjust MFC in a different sheep's clothing. Sorry, but I don't have a timemachine to go back in time and video myself looking at documentation.

[Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread]

[DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, (continued)
- [DotGNU]ECMA Standard Base classes and Assemblies., jscottb, 2003/10/10
  - Re: [DotGNU]ECMA Standard Base classes and Assemblies., Rhys Weatherley, 2003/10/10

Prev by Date: [DotGNU]Translators wanted for pnetlib
Next by Date: [DotGNU]Conference Report from "Using Portable.Net"
Previous by thread: Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?
Next by thread: Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread