Re: SV: [Mingw-users] #define ICC_BAR_CLASSES 4 missing in commctrl.h

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

Chris Hansen wrote:
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: min...@li...
> [mailto:min...@li...]Pa vegne af Earnie Boyd
> Sendt: 15. januar 2001 14:51
> Til: Chris Hansen
> Cc: min...@li...
> Emne: Re: [Mingw-users] #define ICC_BAR_CLASSES 4 missing in commctrl.h
> 
> > If there is more than one source and one of the sources
> >is MSDN then MSDN rules over the other sources.
> 
> Doesn't it already? From where comes the orginal source? Isn't that from
> Microsoft?
> 

Sorry, I should have been more explicit.  I mean source of documentation
not "source code".

> I mean... You might use documentation and source from somewhere else, but
> that "somewhere else" properbly got it from Microsoft.
> 

If I have documentation from the authority of documentation then I won't
use hearsay documentation if it differs.  If they don't differ then
there's nothing to discuss.

> Do not misunderstand me. I do NOT want to copy MSDN but I believe this is
> the most reliable source of Windows API documentation. Unless some spy
> infiltrates Microsoft and smuggles the source code for Windows out of the
> country. That'll really be something :-)
> 

In recreating the headers, you cannot look at anyone else's headers. 
You must rely only on the documentation and hopefully with luck you can
get most of it.  Typically when reviewing a patch, I'll use the Google
search engine to find the macro.  If I get a hit from MSDN then that is
the definition I'll use to verify the validity of the patch.  If I don't
find a hit from MSDN then I'll use the most common definition to verify
validity of a patch.

Cheers,
Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com