"Vincent Fatica" <ab***@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:44********@news.vefatica.net...
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:14:45 -0500, "Jeff Partch" <je***@mvps.org> wrote:
That's what seems to be the case. So the table in the docs indicating:
K ... Cacheable ... Marks the section as not cacheable
is wrong, eh?
Oh, I'm a bonehead -- I see what you're saying now. :) Whatever its trying
to mean, that 'not' has been part of the documentation since at least Oct
2001.
It's what you currently see online at MSDN:
I know. What I mean is it has said the same thing for ~5 years. While its
not impossible that its a typo or a mistake that's gone unnoticed for
half-a-decade and several linker versions, I suspect it is trying to say
something subtle with intent. The fact that all that gobbledygook about K
being peculiar has been added since then and now, indicates to me that
somebody has already said 'Huh?', and that the doc owner approved the 'not'
and then tried to make its intended meaning more clear. I'm not sure s/he
succeeded, because it still sounds backwards to me too. Of course, I'm only
a fry-cook and a self-confessed bonehead. :)
--
Jeff Partch [VC++ MVP]
