"Shachar Shemesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ignoring LC_CTYPE is as random as ignoring any other one. For the 100th > time, we are not ignoring LC_ALL and LANG. We are simply ALSO looking at > LC_CTYPE.
We were looking for LC_CTYPE before and it was removed from the list of environment variables for a reason. And now you introduced completely different LC_CTYPE handling unlike LC_ALL and LANG do. It's not "ALSO". > We have a property called "LC_CTYPE" on Unix. We have a property called > "System locale" on Windows. They are both documented and observed to do > exactly the same. Mapping one to the other seems the right thing to do. > > There is no need to create an elaborate system of test cases just so I > can prove something which appears to be right is really right. It only appears unfortunately. > If you > are so certain it's wrong, why don't you do one of two things: > 1. Show us that LC_CTYPE and system locale are NOT the same thing. > 2. Show us what system APIs functionality is broken by this patch. That's nonsense to ask me or somebody else to proof your patch is wrong. That's your responsibility to proof its correctness to everyone else, writing test cases and pointing out to documentation if necessary. > In other words, this patch fixes Wine on my system without breaking it > on yours. Any system on which it does break is a system you > categorically call broken to begin with (LC_CTYPE points elsewhere from > LANG). Why do you object so much? I'm doing a lot of work supporting cxoffice users fixing locale related bugs for them. Since the release 3.0 I haven't had a single locale related bug report, and therefore I assume that most of the bugs are fixed. Now you want to break that fragile balance. How can I keep silence? -- Dmitry.
