Re: [PATCH 1/4] hhctrl.ocx: Add HTML to Unicode decoding capability.

[André Hentschel]

Am 18.06.2012 15:52, schrieb Erich E. Hoover:
> Real Name:
>     Erich Hoover
>
> Description:
>     This patch adds the ability in HTML Help to convert HTML encoded
> characters (e.g. ê) into the Unicode character equivalent.  This
> feature is needed by the table of contents and the index for
> displaying international characters in some CHM files.  With this
> version of the patch the code for finding the appropriate symbol has
> been split out into a separate function (requested by Michael
> Stefaniuc) and the string comparison has been modified to use the
> larger of the two lengths (the length of the symbol to check and the
> length of the symbol given in the help file).
>
> Changelog:
>     hhctrl.ocx: Add HTML to Unicode decoding capability.

You're adding dead code here, you should maybe merge Patch 1 & 2


-- 

Best Regards, André Hentschel

[PATCH 1/4] hhctrl.ocx: Add HTML to Unicode decoding capability.

[Erich E. Hoover]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM, André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 15:52, schrieb Erich E. Hoover:
> ...
> > Changelog:
> >     hhctrl.ocx: Add HTML to Unicode decoding capability.
>
> You're adding dead code here, you should maybe merge Patch 1 & 2

Since part 2 and 3 are both dependent upon this code I chose to do it
this way in order to aid in any potential debugging and regression
testing (allowing for the easy independent removal of either the ToC
changes or the Index changes).  So, would you prefer that I leave it;
just merge part 1 and 2; or merge part 1, 2, and 3.

Erich

[PATCH 1/4] hhctrl.ocx: Add HTML to Unicode decoding capability.

[André Hentschel]

Am 19.06.2012 03:09, schrieb Erich E. Hoover:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM, André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> wrote:
> > Am 18.06.2012 15:52, schrieb Erich E. Hoover:
> > ...
> > > Changelog:
> > >     hhctrl.ocx: Add HTML to Unicode decoding capability.
> >
> > You're adding dead code here, you should maybe merge Patch 1 & 2
>
> Since part 2 and 3 are both dependent upon this code I chose to do it
> this way in order to aid in any potential debugging and regression
> testing (allowing for the easy independent removal of either the ToC
> changes or the Index changes).  So, would you prefer that I leave it;
> just merge part 1 and 2; or merge part 1, 2, and 3.

merge patch 1 and (patch 2 or patch 3)


-- 

Best Regards, André Hentschel