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.
So, which test your commit fixes and why is that test correct? 2009/8/5 Steven Edwards <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Alexander Potashev<[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
