Sync(2): oleaut32 I1 funcs

[Jon Griffiths]

Hiya,

> Is there any reason for stripping out the parameter names from this
file?
> They can be quite useful as a reminder for what each parameter is.

Consistency and ease of reading, mostly. Before the patch only some
of the calls have parameter names, and (e.g.) the variant calls
aren't consistent in their use of the names anyway. Compilers just
ignore the names, and for humans, we (should) have documentation that
tells us what functions are supposed to do.

I don't think that, for example:
HRESULT WINAPI VarUI2FromDisp(IDispatch* pdispIn, LCID lcid, USHORT*
puiOut);

Tells you anything more than:

HRESULT WINAPI VarUI2FromDisp(IDispatch*,LCID,USHORT*);

If you wan't to know what the parameters of the calls in this header
mean and really can't remember, you'll be able to 'man funcname' when
I finish syncing my tree in any case - I've documented them all in
c2man extractable form.

> P.S. In other parts of your patch you replaced char with signed
> char. Is signed char != char?

They aren't the same. 'man gcc' and look for "-funsigned-char".

I actually wanted to use char and not signed char, but Alexandre
expressed a preference for doing it this way. My rationale is that if
I build an app under windows using msvcs "-funsigned-char"
equivalent, my app get prototypes from the native headers using
unsigned chars, whereas using "-funsigned-char" and building under
winelib will give me signed chars. However, the chances of this
making a difference in the real world are slight.

Cheers,
Jon


=====
"Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
 Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live

jon_p_griffiths at yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com