Re: [PATCH] ole32: Properly implement OleRegGetUserType()

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

> dlls/ole32/ole2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

It would be helpful to know why this implementaion is considered more
"proper" than an existing one, especially taking into account lack of
any tests or reference to a bug report.

[PATCH] ole32: Properly implement OleRegGetUserType()

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 30.12.2015 11:57, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > dlls/ole32/ole2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> It would be helpful to know why this implementaion is considered more
> "proper" than an existing one, especially taking into account lack of
> any tests or reference to a bug report.

String 'form' argument was ignored before, and it's wrong. When there's
no additional forms registered it falls back to form 1 as it always did.

[PATCH] ole32: Properly implement OleRegGetUserType()

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Nikolay Sivov  wrote:
> > > dlls/ole32/ole2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> >
> > It would be helpful to know why this implementaion is considered more
> > "proper" than an existing one, especially taking into account lack of
> > any tests or reference to a bug report.
>
> String 'form' argument was ignored before, and it's wrong. When there's
> no additional forms registered it falls back to form 1 as it always did.

How do you know that it was not an intended behaviour?