On 05/01/2008, Ben Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. In line with my previous emails, here is a revised patch. It also works, > but > by a different approach. It will definitely be better in some regards in > light of > a few points that were raised, but I'm still not completely comfortable with > it--it does seem like a bit of a dirty hack. That said, it probably wouldn't > cause > things to break--it just feels dirty/dangerous, though it is very safe. What > do > you think now, guys? Is it looking good, or in need of further improvement? > > Ben.
It looks much better to me. Not that I am an expert on these matters, but I don't see any (present or future) problems with replacing UniChar* et al. the way you've done. For what it's worth I have no objections to merging this patch. /Björn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
