> I'll try to find the discussion (if someone has a handy pointer - it
> would be greatly apretiated), but if it turns out that it is necessary
> because we use "" instead of <>, I don't think that counts ;-)
I believe that the difference between "" and <> is that if you use ""
the directory whe
Le mer 25/06/2003 à 16:01, Shachar Shemesh a écrit :
> >>Only because we add "-I." to the compilation flags. Adding "-I." to
> >>the compilation flags should not be necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >It is necessary, this has been discussed before.
> >
> >
> I'll try to find the discussion (if someone h
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can see why you say that, but I feel it narrows the discussion down
> to technical (will or will not compile) consideration only. I think
> that we also need to show commitment to separating inner from
> exported, and this, to me, means the source to
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First I want to clarify something. Nothing in this email is meant to
suggest that I think the bidi change should, in any way, depend on
this issue. If you want, I can even amend my patch.
Yes please.
Wilco.
Only beca
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First I want to clarify something. Nothing in this email is meant to
> suggest that I think the bidi change should, in any way, depend on
> this issue. If you want, I can even amend my patch.
Yes please.
> Only because we add "-I." to the compilation
Alexandre Julliard julliard-at-winehq.org |Wine Mailing Lists| wrote:
Jeff Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm sorry, so maybe it is not necessary, but how does
doing it the 'right way' add confusion?
There is no 'right way', inside the source tree both are completely
equivalent. Changing it
First I want to clarify something. Nothing in this email is meant to
suggest that I think the bidi change should, in any way, depend on this
issue. If you want, I can even amend my patch.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The reason I did was to reduce con
Jeff Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sorry, so maybe it is not necessary, but how does
> doing it the 'right way' add confusion?
There is no 'right way', inside the source tree both are completely
equivalent. Changing it adds confusion because you now have 1000 files
doing it one way and
I'm sorry, so maybe it is not necessary, but how does
doing it the 'right way' add confusion?
-- Jeff Smith
--- Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > -#include "config.h"
> > -#include "wine/port.h"
> > +#include
> > +#include
> >
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason I did was to reduce confusion. The usual includes are
> standard includes, and can be included with either <> or "". The new
> include (gdibidi.h) is a local include, and can only be included with
> "". To differentiate the two, I changed th
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-#include "config.h"
-#include "wine/port.h"
+#include
+#include
#include
#include
#include
-#include "winerror.h"
-#include "winnls.h"
-#include "wownt32.h"
-#include "gdi.h"
-#include "wine/unicode.h"
-#include "wine/
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -#include "config.h"
> -#include "wine/port.h"
> +#include
> +#include
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
> -#include "winerror.h"
> -#include "winnls.h"
> -#include "wownt32.h"
> -#include "gdi.h"
> -#include "wine/unicode.h"
> -#include "wi
12 matches
Mail list logo
