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