Documentation fixes

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Patrik Stridvall <ps at leissner.se> writes:
> 
> > However I'm a little curious where the documentation, 
> > and yes I'm talking about real documentation not just
> > the external name and the ordinal, should be placed.
> > Sure you have the underlying Unix man pages at least 
> > if we are talking about the MSVCRT and NTDLL functions,
> > but it would be nice to have a proper Windows style
> > man page for them eventually.
> 
> Given that nobody is writing documention for the Windows functions
> anyway, I don't think the documentation of standard C library
> functions is an issue at all.

Well, lack of people writing documentation is a problem in most
open source projects and Wine doesn't seem to be an exception.

However, denying people the possiblity to do so for some functions
doesn't help either.

> > I can't fix winapi_check properly. I can kludge it yes, but fix no.
> 
> Your proposed solution is not fixing it either, it's just moving the
> kludge from winapi_check directly into the source. And that's not a
> good thing IMO.

What kludge? Ugly OK, that is your subjective opinion, but kludge?
Even if we only see it from a purely C language perspective,
it solves the problem of making sure that the C library functions
have the prototypes we expect them to have. There is no other
way to solve that problem that I can think of so it is certainly
not a kludge.

Of course you can always argue that it is a solution searching for
a problem, but that is not a what I would call a kludge.

Anyway, arguing about misuse of words is a waste of time and I don't
think I have anything more to add that are likely to convince you.
If you are not convinced now, you never will be.