2009/8/5 Alexander Potashev aspotashev@gmail.com:
Nevermind. I just wanted to say that this function is very broken and it's a bit strange that you have made another, arguable, change.
I meant gschneider
So, which test your commit fixes and why is that test correct?
And here too...
2009/8/5 Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Alexander Potashevaspotashev@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, are you sure that this code is mature enough to care about minor details? I would say, "@implemented" has been added by mistake.
The whole @implemented/@unimplemented thing is a mistake. It's really a worthless measure to go by. I mean lets say function foo takes 20 args but only 10 are useful most of the time and then 8 out of those are implemented, what do you say? @sorta-buggy-implemented...
I think if we are going to have something like this then we need autogenerated implementation details on top of the normal API documentation that we have. My thought is to have something based on the conformance tests results.
/* * ShellExecuteEx * * Foo Blah Stuff and Things Docu Blah Blah * * PARAMS * Foo gives stuff * * Returns * Bar returns stuff * * Implementation Status * * %72 implemented * %10 implementation Fuzz (or failure or something, can't think of the best term) * %18 TODO */
Some one want to write a bot that does this during release time? I'd love to be able to hack on it but like all my ideas, I lack the free time.
-- Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev