On 3/5/2010 12:16 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 3/3/2010 2:03 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> >>> I guess filling in the EXTENSION_CONTROL_BLOCK with their addresses is >>> not the only way an app gets addressibility .../? >> >> Oh, hold up. I think you are right on this, that these aren't expected to be >> available in the namespace by name :) > > I agree ;) > > The first MS doc I found for one of the callbacks after your first > post was vague enough that I could imagine you were right, but if I > look at enough search hits I can find some MS writer that says exactly > what I want to read (which is at least a little more reassuring).
If you want to recommit, I'd preface these four with cbfnXxx or regfnXxx to make them look a little less suspiciously like exports. If you like I'm happy to recommit your patch with that change, since you backed it out on my foolishness :)
