Re: make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[Christopher]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Christopher  writes:
> > James Hawkins wrote:
> > > Why don't you just name the new parameter the same name as the
> > > function parameter ('buffer' or some variation)?  junkpointer is a
> > > terrible variable name.
> >
> > sure, I will change it.
>
> Actually what you should do is take advantage of the fact that the
> pointer is returned to simplify the code and avoid a second LoadStringW
> call.

Is there more work I need to do on this patch? I noticed that the new 
copy that I sent in, with the corrections that everyone suggested, still 
hasn't been accepted.

Christopher Berner