[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?
From:       James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51 () earthlink ! net>
Date:       2010-06-30 20:13:05
Message-ID: 22485396.1277928786284.JavaMail.root () mswamui-billy ! atl ! sa ! earthlink ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]