"Hans Leidekker" wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 17:01:06 Juan Lang wrote:
>
>> + 704 stdcall @(wstr ptr) SHELL32_704 # GUIDFromStringW
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using SHELL32_704 as the name,
>> instead of GUIDFromStringW?
>
> I just followed a pattern already there
Hans Leidekker writes:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 17:01:06 Juan Lang wrote:
>
>> + 704 stdcall @(wstr ptr) SHELL32_704 # GUIDFromStringW
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using SHELL32_704 as the name,
>> instead of GUIDFromStringW?
>
> I just followed a pattern already there i
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 17:01:06 Juan Lang wrote:
>
>> + 704 stdcall @(wstr ptr) SHELL32_704 # GUIDFromStringW
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using SHELL32_704 as the name,
>> instead of GUIDFromStringW?
>
> I just follo
> I just followed a pattern already there in shell32, I don't know the exact
> rules that apply here, to be honest.
I neither, I was seeking illumination. In case there's an absence of
clear rules, I'd suggest the more readable GUIDFromStringW is better.
--Juan
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 17:01:06 Juan Lang wrote:
> + 704 stdcall @(wstr ptr) SHELL32_704 # GUIDFromStringW
>
> Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using SHELL32_704 as the name,
> instead of GUIDFromStringW?
I just followed a pattern already there in shell32, I don't know the exact
ru
Hi Hans,
+ 704 stdcall @(wstr ptr) SHELL32_704 # GUIDFromStringW
Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using SHELL32_704 as the name,
instead of GUIDFromStringW?
--Juan
