Re: [PATCH] ole32: Properly implement OleRegGetUserType()
dlls/ole32/ole2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
It would be helpful to know why this implementaion is considered more "proper" than an existing one, especially taking into account lack of any tests or reference to a bug report. -- Dmitry.
On 30.12.2015 11:57, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
dlls/ole32/ole2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
It would be helpful to know why this implementaion is considered more "proper" than an existing one, especially taking into account lack of any tests or reference to a bug report.
String 'form' argument was ignored before, and it's wrong. When there's no additional forms registered it falls back to form 1 as it always did.
Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> wrote:
dlls/ole32/ole2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
It would be helpful to know why this implementaion is considered more "proper" than an existing one, especially taking into account lack of any tests or reference to a bug report.
String 'form' argument was ignored before, and it's wrong. When there's no additional forms registered it falls back to form 1 as it always did.
How do you know that it was not an intended behaviour? -- Dmitry.
participants (2)
-
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Nikolay Sivov