André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> wrote:
> + for (r = 0; r < 0xFFFF; r++)
> + {
> + if (ignorewchar(r))
> + {
> + markerW[2] = r;
> + todo_wine
> + {
> + ok(!lstrcmpW(markerW, nomarkerW), "expected the character 0x%x to be ignored within the string\n", r);
> + ok(CompareStringW(LOCALE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT, 0, markerW, -1, nomarkerW, -1) == 2,
> + "expected the character 0x%x to be ignored within the string\n", r);
> + ok(CompareStringW(LOCALE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT, NORM_IGNORECASE|NORM_IGNORENONSPACE|NORM_IGNORESYMBOLS|
> + SORT_STRINGSORT|NORM_IGNOREKANATYPE|NORM_IGNOREWIDTH|LOCALE_USE_CP_ACP,
> + markerW, -1, nomarkerW, -1) == 2,
> + "expected the character 0x%x to be ignored within the string\n", r);
> + }
> + }
> + }
This is not better, my comments for your previous attempts still apply.
In addition to those:
1. if you decided to use some specific flags in the CompareString call, you may
want to test other variants of them. Using LOCALE_USE_CP_ACP in a W version of
the API doesn't look useful.
2. return value of CompareString has symblic names.
--
Dmitry.