Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

[James Mckenzie]

Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> wrote:
> Sent: Jun 30, 2010 12:43 PM
> To: James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>
> Cc: Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net>, wine-devel(a)winehq.org
> Subject: Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie
> <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status.  That way we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled across something in my latest Richedit tests) as well.  This would help greatly in our progress towards current and future implementations of the Windows API.
> >
> > And I agree, adding all of this to the source would make it unwieldy.
>
> So something like "http://wiki.winehq.org/WineAPI/<DLL>/<Function>" ?
> If that's acceptable I would not mind a system like that, especially
> if the links of documented functions are provided in the source.
> Documenting these things is a lot of work, so I'm not about to run off
> and do all that work if no-one is ever going to take advantage of it.

+1
Acceptable variables should be listed in an order other than the one on MSDN.  We don't want a direct copy, but rather OUR findings using the old 'black box' method.

James McKenzie