<P><BR>why not test for '?' and '.' which are the forms we know off, instead of letting the door ajar ?</P>
<P>A+<BR><BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid">> Message du 19/10/05 18:27<BR>> De : "Vijay Kiran Kamuju" <INFYQUEST@GMAIL.COM><BR>> A : "Hans Leidekker" <HANS@IT.VU.NL>, wine-devel@winehq.org<BR>> Copie à : <BR>> Objet : Re: fix for #3219<BR>> <BR>> I have kept it there incase of regressions<BR>> We can just easily uncomment and test.<BR>> <BR>> Thanks,<BR>> Vijay<BR>> <BR>> On 10/19/05, Hans Leidekker <HANS@IT.VU.NL>wrote:<BR>> > On Wednesday 19 October 2005 09:19, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > > - /* MS mangled names always begin with '?' */<BR>> > > - if (*sym->current != '?') return FALSE;<BR>> > > + /* MS mangled names always begin with '?'<BR>> > > + if (*sym->current != '?') return FALSE; */<BR>> ><BR>> > It's better to remove code then disabling it<BR>> > this way. We can always refer to CVS history.<BR>> ><BR>> > -Hans<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>