Paul Millar wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
>
>>The tests show that values are exported in the same
>>order in which they are created. This means the values
>>are stored not in any particular order.
>
>
> That doesn't necessarily follow ...
>
> The export function(s) cou
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
[snip - Eric's info on why the registry has to be sorted]
> The tests show that values are exported in the same
> order in which they are created. This means the values
> are stored not in any particular order.
That doesn't necessarily follow ...
T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 03-Apr-02 Andriy Palamarchuk carved into stone:
> A program can expect to retrieve values in the order
> they were created. In particular, the problem can be
> if the app creates names like Item1, ..., Item10.
> After sorting Item10 will be after Item1
Andriy Palamarchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't have any doubts that existing code is faster.
> The point of the patch is compatibility with Windows
> behaviour.
Unless we find a real-life application that depends on that, there
isn't much point in being compatible here.
--
Alexandre
--- Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fail to see the benefits of the patch:
> - key are sorted to allow O(log(n)) searching
> (registry
> is loaded only once, and then searched lots of
> time)
> so using enhanced searching techniques (<< O(n))
> is
> really needed
> - saying that
Andriy Palamarchuk a écrit :
>
> Working on regedit replacement I noticed that Windows
> regedit does not sort registry key values, while Wine
> does.
> I tested this on NT 4.0, SP2. You can check this by
> importing a registry file with not alphabetic values
> order and exporting it again.
I fa
