Re: make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[Alexandre Julliard]

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.