"Saulius Krasuckas" <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> wrote:
ChangeLog: Saulius Krasuckas <saulius.krasuckas(a)ieee.org> Fix W to A call.
I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing, and removes a readability of the message. -- Dmitry.
On Thursday 21 July 2005 15:42, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Saulius Krasuckas" <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> wrote:
ChangeLog: Saulius Krasuckas <saulius.krasuckas(a)ieee.org> Fix W to A call.
I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing, and removes a readability of the message.
I would agree, but I thought there is a consensus to always use the unicode APIs. There are several occurences in my patches, where I would have prefered to use the ascii APIs (especially in RegQueryValue and the like). Would that be ok? Bye, -- Michael Jung mjung(a)iss.tu-darmstadt.de
From: "Michael Jung" <mjung(a)iss.tu-darmstadt.de>
I would agree, but I thought there is a consensus to always use the unicode APIs. There are several occurences in my patches, where I would have prefered to use the ascii APIs (especially in RegQueryValue and the like). Would that be ok?
I think it would be better to always use the W APIs. This way we can have tools to warn if we have W->A transitions. We lose a little in readability (a special grep tool anyone?), but we gain a simple rule to follow and enforce, which could be used by various tools, like winapi_check. -- Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.
Dimi Paun wrote:
I think it would be better to always use the W APIs. This way we can have tools to warn if we have W->A transitions. We lose a little in readability (a special grep tool anyone?), but we gain a simple rule to follow and enforce, which could be used by various tools, like winapi_check.
I'm sure this has already been proposed (and rejected :) but I'll ask nevertheless: Why not use L"" everywhere and add a small perl/awk/whatever preprocessor which translates into C89 for compilers which don't support wide string literals? Felix
* On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
* "Saulius Krasuckas" <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> wrote:
ChangeLog: Saulius Krasuckas <saulius.krasuckas(a)ieee.org> Fix W to A call.
I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing, and removes a readability of the message.
And why don't you mark this case on Wiki page [1] as invalid or even correct statements on the same page? [1] http://wiki.winehq.org/CrossCallsWtoA
On 7/21/05, Saulius Krasuckas <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> wrote:
* On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
* "Saulius Krasuckas" <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> wrote:
ChangeLog: Saulius Krasuckas <saulius.krasuckas(a)ieee.org> Fix W to A call.
I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing, and removes a readability of the message.
And why don't you mark this case on Wiki page [1] as invalid or even correct statements on the same page?
I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's a temporary GUI fixme. Once my hhctrl patches go through, this message will be gone anyway. -- James Hawkins
* On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, James Hawkins wrote:
* On 7/21/05, Saulius Krasuckas <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> wrote:
* On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing, and removes a readability of the message.
And why don't you mark this case on Wiki page [1] as invalid or even correct statements on the same page?
I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's a temporary GUI fixme. Once my hhctrl patches go through, this message will be gone anyway.
Yes, I haven't though of this, thanks. But everyone could rephrase my question other way round: -Is there any meaningless cross-calls left more in the mentioned list? I imagine some novice guy like me would start contribute from small WtoA-elimination patches. But maybe that still has its advantages, OTOH, as the beginner is able to raise his coding skills in such cases. :-/
participants (6)
-
Dimi Paun -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Felix Nawothnig -
James Hawkins -
Michael Jung -
Saulius Krasuckas