registry: order of insertion of values
Paul Millar
p.millar at physics.gla.ac.uk
Sun Apr 3 17:17:11 CDT 2005
Hi James,
On Sunday 03 Apr 2005 22:43, James Hawkins wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2005 4:33 PM, James Hawkins <truiken at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see what's happening now. The original author of test_enum_value
> either didn't know about the 3 existing keys (maybe they were added
> later) or he thought they wouldn't have an effect on the outcome of
> the tests. What I will do now is make a new, clean subdirectory in
> which to run the tests with the new value.
By the look of it, the bug is that create_test_entries() creates the three
TestN keys (N=1..3), but doesn't clean them after.
> The question is still up in the air though
> about the order of insertion of new values.
I suspect the usual answer applies: if it can be demonstrated that an
application depends on this behaviour, then we should support it.
HTH,
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20050403/ad92b62b/attachment.pgp
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list