Anything wrong with this patch?

[Austin English]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Klein a écrit :
>>
>> 2009/1/24 Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben Klein a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the
>>>>> mailing list too :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea
>>>> why it was rejected?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
>>>
>>> Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you
>>> should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one
>>> candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension
>>> types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is it really about "supporting"? As AJ points out in his comment,
>> nothing stops you from writing in the .acm file, which is almost
>> certainly faster than scrolling through the whole list to find it
>> anyway.
>>
>> Isn't the list of DLLs in winecfg long enough already?
>>
>>
>>
>
> I like to type the beginning of a dll, and just press <tab> to get its full
> name. It is only a matter of comfort. :)
>

That, and developers are probably aren't using this much anyway. Most
of us avoid native dlls, but when using them A) use winetricks or B)
use WINEDLLOVERRIDES.

Users would find it more convenient, and arguably, they should be able
to. I don't see any reason we shouldn't allow .acm's. Sys/drv probably
not. Exe, debatable.

-- 
-Austin