"Alex Shindich" <shindich at itginc.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.986416626.29504.python-list at python.org...
[snip]
> about COM, shall we:-)." And his comment was quite valid. He was also
> correct explaining that one of the reasons for using __stdcall convention
is
> to standardize on how parameters are being passed into the methods. Except
Actually, I said nothing (on this thread) about *WHY* the __stdcall calling
convention was chosen (for the COM specs for Intel-compatible 32-bit CPU's),
just that it was; thus, you're way over-crediting me here.
> that even such trust-worthy community members as Mr. Martelli do not
always
> provide complete information. And therefore it is better to read books.
It's perfectly true that, despite my penchant for lengthy posts, I most
generally do not say (repeat) _everything_ in every post. Unfortunately,
since most books have a finite number of pages, the same limitation applies
to them: from each book, you will probably be able to extract only a
finite amount of information. Why, even such an excellent tome as Don
Box's "Essential COM" *completely* fails to mention that, if you imbibe an
excessive amount of fizzy drinks during a hectic session of COM coding,
this might possibly lead to deleterious effects on your digestion... so,
even it does NOT "always provide _complete_ information"!
Because of this, some of us abide by lower standards, feeling reasonably
satisfied if, at least, what (incomplete) information IS provided is
at least *correct*. A sadly lax standard to a philosopher, no doubt,
but mere engineers like me are resigned to living in an imperfect world.
Alex
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4