Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I'm sorry for butting in on this. I don't understand your problem either. Dimi didn't change the location of the code - it's still in user32. Our dependencies won't change as a result of his patch, and it therefor follows that no program will break as a result of this comment."Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've explained that already: the comment's purpose is to identify
the *documentation* that the code has been audited against. Which
is the commctl 6.0 documentation. This is where MS says the standard
controls reside in XP, what's the problem?
The problem is that the documentation is misleading (intentionally or not it doesn't matter), and following a wrong doc is not what we want to do in Wine.
What he did do, however, is carefully read the docs to find out how nuances work. He then proceeded to audit our code to make sure that it conforms. When you do such an audit, you do it against the docs, wherever they may be.
In this case, Dimi used version 6.0 of the comctl32.dll documentation. It can hardly be his fault that that's where the docs for button controls are. I don't think any amount of patch sending or arguing on our part is going to persuade Microsoft to move the docs elsewhere. Personally, I also see value in documenting what version of the docs the audit was performed against, so that future mismatches can be tracked down.
Can you suggest a better way to write the comment?
Shachar
P.S.
Such comments do suffer from another problem. They tend to fall out of date. For that reason alone I'm not sure this comment is a good idea. Otherwise, we get a future commit that changes something, but neglects to update the comment accordingly, and the comment turns useless or even dangerous. Maybe if we change that to contain the date or the CVS version number of the file that was audited....
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/
