(Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51 at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 30 14:36:23 CDT 2010


Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
>
>Erich Hoover <ehoover at mines.edu> writes:
>
>> Alright, well then I won't do it.  Is the existing documentation going
>> to be stripped at some point?  It seems to me like we would benefit
>> from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API
>> documentation.  I think it would save a lot of time for new developers
>> to get their feet wet if they were able to see directly in the source
>> what the different functions are supposed to do (as best as we know)
>> and exactly what applications will trigger known edge cases (or if
>> there's a test for a given situation).
>
>That's what the source code and test cases are for. If you rely on the
>function documentation you are in trouble anyway, nobody bothers to
>update it when new behaviors are discovered.
>
>If you really want to write good API documentation, as opposed to the
>current useless one-sentence-per-parameter description, you'd need
>probably a text 10 times the size of the source code for each
>function. That can't go in the source files.
>
How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status.  That way we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled across something in my latest Richedit tests) as well.  This would help greatly in our progress towards current and future implementations of the Windows API.

And I agree, adding all of this to the source would make it unwieldy.

James McKenzie



More information about the wine-devel mailing list