"James" == James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com writes:
James> Hi, In the current state of wine, we have several A/W functions. James> Sometimes both the A and W functions are separately implemented James> with an ansi and unicode implementation respectively. Other A/W James> functions have the A forward to the W, converting the ansi to James> unicode. For all the functions that can, should we forward all A James> to their W counterparts? When it comes to the conformance test James> suite, this would be ideal. Only the A functions would have to James> be tested and in doing so, we test the A/W conversion and the James> functionality of the W functions (we're striving for all-unicode James> internally anyway). This would reduce the number of bugs, and James> the time it takes to fix current bugs. When both A and W are James> implemented and we find a bug in one of them, we have to remember James> to fix the same bug in the other function. For most of the James> functions, converting ansi to unicode is boilerplate code. This James> process could even be a janitorial project. What do you think?
Even in the case when all A-functions are forwarded to W-functions, a test-suite for only the A-functions may not be enough, as often there are some decisions in the A-function before the W-function is called. It the breakout condition is met, the W-function is not called, and so this condition is not tested for the W-function