5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
5:31 a.m.
2009/8/5 Alexander Potashev <aspotashev(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Alexander
Potashev<aspotashev(a)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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev