12 Nov
2007
12 Nov
'07
12:40 a.m.
Steven Edwards schrieb:
On Nov 11, 2007 9:50 AM, Marc Piulachs
<marc.piulachs(a)codexchange.net> wrote:
I don't think it's a "not invented here" syndrom.
There's a standard in function headers, we already have in ntoskrnl,
well mostly. @name MmIterateFirstNode, @param Node, ... and the
@implemented just fits in there pretty good.
It's not our standard, other tools like doxygen and codeblocks also
support those headers. Wine headers don't stick to that standard.
We also should distingush between an apistatus and documentation that
seems to get interchanged here all the time. An apistatus is only a
quick overview to see if something is implemented or not. It doesn't say
anything about how the function works, if there are bugs, etc. That's
for the documentation. I agree that a simple @implemented or not doesn't
say much about if something really works, but gives a good clue if
something might work. If you see unimplemented for 5 of 6 functions you
need, you know you will have a lot of work ;-) And if you look into our
stubs.c files you will see that we still have lots of unimplemented
functions.
If you want more detailed documentation, if something works or not: I
have created an api testing framework, which is able to output test
results as html, where you can quickly see, if something works or not
and if there are regressions. We would only need a huge bunch of tests...
Regards,
Timo
How different is the methodology used in wine
from the one we want to
introduce in reactos?
Nothing really except the Wine one works and is fully functionally. I
recommended ReactOS
adopt it and the Wine comment style a long time ago but it never was
because the project
sometimes suffers from Not Invented Here Syndrome. If the other tool