On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:28:04 -0800, you wrote:
>(Apart from the other discussion) are you sure that you really
>mean that?
>"If the length is explicitly stated to be zero then don't do the
>calcrect but if the length is to be measured and happens to come
>out as zero then do do the calcrect"
>I
On January 25, 2006 10:49 am, Rein Klazes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:49:57 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
> >Hi Rein,
> >
> >-if (!str) return 0;
> >+if (!str || count == 0) return 0;
> > if (count == -1) count = strlenW(str);
> >-if (count == 0) return 0;
> >+if (count == 0) {
>
From: "Paul Vriens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But there's an if in between:
>
> if (count == -1) count = strlenW(str);
Yeap, missed that one. Which proves that the code
should be improved, since it managed to confuse 2
people already ;)
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:03 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
> From: "Rein Klazes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Wrong, look again.
>
> You must be kidding. Care to explain how 'stmt'
> can ever be executed in:
>
> ...
>if (A || B) return;
>if (B) stmt;
> ...
>
But there's an if in between:
if (count
From: "Rein Klazes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Wrong, look again.
You must be kidding. Care to explain how 'stmt'
can ever be executed in:
...
if (A || B) return;
if (B) stmt;
...
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:49:57 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>Hi Rein,
>
>-if (!str) return 0;
>+if (!str || count == 0) return 0;
> if (count == -1) count = strlenW(str);
>-if (count == 0) return 0;
>+if (count == 0) {
>+if( flags & DT_CALCRECT) {
>+rect->right = r
Hi Rein,
-if (!str) return 0;
+if (!str || count == 0) return 0;
if (count == -1) count = strlenW(str);
-if (count == 0) return 0;
+if (count == 0) {
+if( flags & DT_CALCRECT) {
+rect->right = rect->left;
+rect->bottom = rect->top;
+}
+
