Submitted #5 a couple days ago, along with a short explanation of how it all worked together. Any comments? If you'd like me to change the architecture I'm willing to do so, if you can give me some hints about what direction to go with it. If you want some other changes made, please drop some clues about what they might be. If you want to see more, I have more that can be cleaned up for submission. If you need more clarification on some issue I can give it. I just loathe sitting around wondering if these are good enough or not when I could be working more on them if they need revision or the next batch if they don't ;)
--Daniel Remenak On 8/10/05, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Remenak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Could I get some feedback on why this has not been applied? I've got > > several additional patches prepared already that depend on it and if > > something needs to be changed I'd like to know before I get even more > > that do. It still applies cleanly to CVS. If it's just not being > > applied because it's considered dead code I can submit the other > > patches that actually use it. > > That would be good. The pseudo vtbl functions that are not used in a > vtbl don't look right to me, but I'm not sure what you are planning to > do with that. > > -- > Alexandre Julliard > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
