Re: Incorrect declarations of thread functions on w32

[Lennart Borgman]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman wrote:
> > Seems like reader_thread is ok, but would it not be much easier to 
> > understand if LPVOID was used instead of void* in the argument?
> I don't think so. LPVOID is a macro, anyone who is not familiar with the 
> definition that Microsoft has given it would have to search for its 
> definition.
> void * is standard C.


Maybe write LPVOID to make it easier to compare and add a comment that 
it usually is just void* ?



> > But w32_msg_worker needs some fix.
> It was done this morning.

Thanks.