* On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, James Hawkins wrote:
> * On 7/21/05, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing,
> > > and removes a readability of the message.
> >
> > And wh
On 7/21/05, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > * "Saulius Krasuckas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ChangeLog:
> > > Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Fix W to A call.
> >
> > I don't see much point in such a "fix". It
* On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> * "Saulius Krasuckas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ChangeLog:
> > Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Fix W to A call.
>
> I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing, and
> removes a readability of the message.
Dimi Paun wrote:
I think it would be better to always use the W APIs. This way we can
have tools to warn if we have W->A transitions. We lose a little in
readability (a special grep tool anyone?), but we gain a simple rule
to follow and enforce, which could be used by various tools, like
winapi_c
From: "Michael Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would agree, but I thought there is a consensus to always use the
unicode
> APIs. There are several occurences in my patches, where I would have
prefered
> to use the ascii APIs (especially in RegQueryValue and the like). Would
that
> be ok?
I think it
On Thursday 21 July 2005 15:42, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Saulius Krasuckas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ChangeLog:
> > Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Fix W to A call.
>
> I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing,
> and removes a readability of the message.
"Saulius Krasuckas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ChangeLog:
Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix W to A call.
I don't see much point in such a "fix". It actually fixes nothing,
and removes a readability of the message.
--
Dmitry.
