Erich Hoover ehoover@mines.edu wrote:
Sent: Jun 30, 2010 12:43 PM To: James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net Cc: Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org, Max TenEyck Woodbury max@mtew.isa-geek.net, wine-devel@winehq.org Subject: Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51@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