Dan Kegel schrieb: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Eric Pouech <eric.pou...@orange.fr> wrote: >> what I don't like in current design: >> - it requires external files to the generic .c file (but putting it into a >> resource would do) > > The current design *does* put the external files into a resource, so > I think I've satisfied that already. > >> - but more importantly, you cannot simply have a result that depends on some >> test conditions or previous results (for example "date"...) >> - also it won't allow to use some "interactive" features of cmd (like >> filename completion on tab) >> >> so I'd better like an approach where you decide, command by command, which >> input strings you send to cmd and how to interpret the final result out of >> the shell. the file approach you're currently using could be of course >> implemented on top of this first layer > > I'm fine with adding those, but I'd prefer to do it later. > The current simple approach will handle most of what > we need. It has already found lots of problems. > - Dan > > i really like that try, but i guess Eric meant to move it in a real .res-file and compile it as that.(so it should be in some TEXT resource format) but you are right IMO to add further tests later. and i am a bit afraid how that works together with the online winetest scripts, so we dont crash them. i can look into that earliest on monday as i am busy till then
-- Best Regards, Andre' Hentschel