Should all A functions forward to their respective W's?

[Uwe Bonnes]

>>>>> "James" == James Hawkins <truiken at gmail.com> writes:

    James> Hi, In the current state of wine, we have several A/W functions.
    James> Sometimes both the A and W functions are separately implemented
    James> with an ansi and unicode implementation respectively.  Other A/W
    James> functions have the A forward to the W, converting the ansi to
    James> unicode.  For all the functions that can, should we forward all A
    James> to their W counterparts?  When it comes to the conformance test
    James> suite, this would be ideal.  Only the A functions would have to
    James> be tested and in doing so, we test the A/W conversion and the
    James> functionality of the W functions (we're striving for all-unicode
    James> internally anyway).  This would reduce the number of bugs, and
    James> the time it takes to fix current bugs.  When both A and W are
    James> implemented and we find a bug in one of them, we have to remember
    James> to fix the same bug in the other function.  For most of the
    James> functions, converting ansi to unicode is boilerplate code.  This
    James> process could even be a janitorial project.  What do you think?

Even in the case when all A-functions are forwarded to W-functions, a
test-suite for only the A-functions may not be enough, as often there are
some decisions in the A-function before the W-function is called. It the
breakout condition is met, the W-function is not called, and so this
condition is not tested for the W-function


-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------