Austin English a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ben Klein a écrit :
>>
>>> 2009/1/24 Austin English <austinengl...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gar...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ben Klein a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the
>>>>>> mailing list too :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea
>>>>> why it was rejected?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
>>>>
>>>> Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you
>>>> should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one
>>>> candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension
>>>> types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is it really about "supporting"? As AJ points out in his comment,
>>> nothing stops you from writing in the .acm file, which is almost
>>> certainly faster than scrolling through the whole list to find it
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> Isn't the list of DLLs in winecfg long enough already?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I like to type the beginning of a dll, and just press <tab> to get its full
>> name. It is only a matter of comfort. :)
>>
>>
>
> That, and developers are probably aren't using this much anyway. Most
> of us avoid native dlls, but when using them A) use winetricks or B)
> use WINEDLLOVERRIDES.
>
> Users would find it more convenient, and arguably, they should be able
> to. I don't see any reason we shouldn't allow .acm's. Sys/drv probably
> not. Exe, debatable.
>
>
I resent the patch quite some time ago, but it's still unaccepted...
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/068325.html
