Andrew Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > James Hawkins wrote: > >> That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard >> won't accept it either. > > I understand and suspect you are right. Maybe I should have made an RFC > rather than opting for trial by patch. :)
I think it's worth fixing, but it's easier to do by avoiding the need for the forward declaration, there's only one place that uses it. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
