I totally agree with this.
  If we reimplement the Win32 API, we have to replicate the exact behaviour that code expects -- not make up our own 'perfected Win32' clone. We don't define the Win32 API, we reimplement it. If our primary goal is application compatibility, then correctness _IS_ compatibility.
  You think that sucks? You want to improve the API? Hey, go implement some similar but 'perfected' API then -- but don't call it Win32. Win32 has never been like that.

> From: aleksey@reactos.org
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:17:23 +0300
> To: ros-dev@reactos.org
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] compatibility vs. correctness
>
> In fact, this is what Wine's regression tests are for too. They test
> not only correct, but also incorrect and tricky situations, where
> behavior is undocumented.
>
> Certainly, I strictly disagree with offers like "let's enhance
> ReactOS API and add a few ROS-specific functions", "let's hack XXX
> WinAPI to do better parameters check", and similar things. Especially
> if there is a real-life testcase (like app you mentioned).
>
> This all comes from the idea, that Microsoft(R) itself is not a
> stupid company, and if it is an indeed serious fault, it's fixed in a
> recent version of their operating system, thus enabling us to fix it
> also. If it's not, then we have to mimic it, otherwise forget about
> compatibility.
>
>
> WBR,
> Aleksey.
>
> On Dec 7, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Ged wrote:
>
> > Zachary Gorden wrote:
> >
> >> Just because Windows was tolerant of this specific sloppiness
> >> doesn't mean
> > we should be.
> >
> > I completely disagree.
> > We need to replicate the Windows API as closely as possible, warts
> > and all.
> > This is what compatibility is all about
> >
> > Ged.
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

---

Get news, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Check it out!