> No. > > Please, a single patch with full solution for unicode & ansistring.
You misundersdtand me here, I think. The patch I mentioned does not concern the Unicode issue at hand. The patch file however has a chunk of unaltered code in it, and in _that_ code there is one Utf8Encode. If the patch to remove Utf8Encode (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35213) is applied before the patch in https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35022 , that latter one becomes invalid, since it references a code-block that is no longer there. If however, OTOH, you do no want to apply the patch from https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35213 because you want an "all containing" patch for that issue, I am a bit puzzled: 1. The proposed patch resolves a regression. This in itself is IMHO a reason to apply it as is. 2. Joost applied the patch to remove Utf8Decode. 3. From what I get from this discussion, there still is no communis opinio on how to implement full unicode support in TRegistry (use Utf8String or UnicodeString overloads for the TRegistry methods). 4. IMO breaking up this process in steps, will make it easier to see why a particular line of code was changed. (The "full solution" seems to be come a rather large and complicated diff. I have already written tests for this issue. I am willing to write more. > It becomes increasingly difficult to estimate the consequences of all this. For me it becomes increasingly difficult to work on the patches for the various TRegistry bugs in the bugtracker if none of the patches there get applied. This is frustrating since currently there seem to be only 2 persons who are prepared to write fixes for TRegistry (Serge Anvarov and me). I get the feeling this subject is just not "sexy" enough. -- Bart _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
