[ros-dev] headers suggestion

[Jonathan Wilson]

Steven Edwards wrote:

> --- Jonathan Wilson <jonwil at tpgi.com.au> wrote:
> 
>>Are we going to actually get permission to re-licence then submit all
>>the 
>>w23api changes back to w32api?
> 
> 
> Unless its its on MSDN or something thats undocumented that you can
> find via a simple google search then the w32api people will not accept
> it. As far as I care we should just maintain our own SDK based on the
> Wine headers, The DDK based on the Mingw DDK and our own NDK for the
> undocumented stuff.
Most of what is in the WINE headers is the stuff that is in the "platform 
SDK" and then "the undocumented stuff".
Keeping the "undocumented" stuff (i.e. the bits microsoft doesnt document 
in the Platform SDK) and the "documented" stuff seperate (i.e. putting the 
undocumented stuff into seperate headers) is a good idea IMO. (e.g. have a 
"userundoc.h" for the undocumented stuff or whatever)
And if we are doing that, we can (if people will re-licence) contribute the 
documented stuff (all of which is in the MS platform SDK or the DDK) back 
to w32api itself to make w32api into something that gets 1 step closer to 
the Platform SDK/DDK (IMO thats what w32api should be aiming at, a clone of 
anything in the microsoft Platform SDK that someone wants to cleanroom 
clone and also anything in the DDK that anyone wants to cleanroom clone)

Anyone else think that keeping the undocumented stuff seperate from the 
regular documented stuff is a good idea? bad idea?