Martin Fuchs wrote:
On 25.03.2004 22:31:59 Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Martin Fuchs wrote:
OK, now the patch including the "return S_FALSE". :-)
This is why small patches are better than large ones :)
Mhh - if you had accepted the whole patch, I would not hav
On 25.03.2004 22:31:59 Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Martin Fuchs wrote:
>
> > OK, now the patch including the "return S_FALSE". :-)
>
> This is why small patches are better than large ones :)
Mhh - if you had accepted the whole patch, I would not have
forgotten to include this
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Martin Fuchs wrote:
> OK, now the patch including the "return S_FALSE". :-)
This is why small patches are better than large ones :)
--
Dimi.
On 25.03.2004 01:00:25 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "Martin Fuchs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > + if (This->bDirty)
> > + return S_OK;
> > +
> > return NOERROR;
>
> S_OK and NOERROR mean the same thing, so this doesn't look quite
> right.
Sure. It should be S_FALSE instead of NOE
"Martin Fuchs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + if (This->bDirty)
> + return S_OK;
> +
> return NOERROR;
S_OK and NOERROR mean the same thing, so this doesn't look quite
right.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
