On December 31, 2003 03:29 pm, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Maybe because crashing is the right thing to do in many cases,
>
> Why? I'd have thought failing the API call would be more sensible, or
Because it's bad policy: it's better to fail early and as close as
possible to the error point, rather then
n Wed, 2003-12-31 at 17:36, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> Maybe because crashing is the right thing to do in many cases,
Why? I'd have thought failing the API call would be more sensible, or
doing what GTK does and printing assertion failures. But hey. Crashing
is what Win32 does, so it's what we do.
On December 31, 2003 12:14 pm, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I guess the reason we need to crash when windows does is for apps that
> trap the fault and rely on it? Or is it just about being as correct as
> possible?
Maybe because crashing is the right thing to do in many cases, but it
looks like MS really
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 22:29, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The ERRs are useless. If Windows does a NULL check, then we should do
> one too, without any error message; if Windows doesn't, then we
> shouldn't check at all.
Well, I tested with a 98 copy of shell32 and it crashes too, so I guess
the pat
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Index: dlls/shell32/pidl.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/shell32/pidl.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.94
> diff -u -r1.94 pidl.c
> --- dlls/shell32/pidl.c 4 Nov 2003 04:21:01 - 1
