On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, John H Terpstra wrote:
> Richard,
>
> This sounds good to me.
>
> Suggest we stick with REGEDIT4 as the version info for now just so as NOT
> to confuse anyone (or any M$ thing).
I can't. I need to have an additional file type so we can handle REGEDIT4
files, but we also n
Richard,
This sounds good to me.
Suggest we stick with REGEDIT4 as the version info for now just so as NOT
to confuse anyone (or any M$ thing).
- John T.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Having thought about this issue a little more, I propose using a format
> similar to RE
Hi,
Having thought about this issue a little more, I propose using a format
similar to REGEDIT4. Indeed, for compatibility, I propose that editreg be
able to process REGEDIT4 files, and that I specify an EDITREG1.0 file
format as well.
REGEDIT4 seems to have the syntax:
REGEDIT4
\[[-]\]
""=[
