![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piggymouseFrom "We Are Morons: a quick look at the Win2k source":
Despite the above, the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into
"add one to i" redundancy.There is some variety in the commenting style. Sometimes blocks use
a at every line, sometimes//the . In some modules functions have a history, some do not. Some functions describe their variables in a comment block, some don't. Microsoft appears not to have fallen into the trap of enforcing/* */styleover-rigid standards or universal use ofover-complicated automatic tools. They seem to trust their developers to comment well, and they do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 06:43 am (UTC)Спасибо за ссылку.
Re:
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 11:09 am (UTC)[объясняется, почему понадобился новый формат заголовка для юникодной версии под NT, а потом идёт следующее]
So just bump the version in the header to REGEDIT5 and be done with it, right? Wrong. The regedit on Win95 and NT 4 looks at the first character after the string "REGEDIT" and compares it to the digit "4". If that character is anything other than the digit "4", the parser assumes it is looking at a Windows 3.1 file. Yep. There will only ever be two formats, right? Just Win95 and Win3.1. That's all the world needs.
So a completely new .reg file header had to be invented, so that the older, brain damaged regedits of the world would simply reject the new, unicodized .reg files outright. An NT 5 .reg file, exporting your user TEMP variable, looks like this:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:55 pm (UTC)Однако наверное все-таки это не PR