2009/8/5 Alexander Potashev <[email protected]>: > 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 <[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
