Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org> wrote: > >Erich Hoover <ehoo...@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