> At 6:02 PM -0800 11/10/99, David Fedor wrote:
> >I just checked the sources from 3.5 back to 3.0 inclusive, and in every
> >case passing 0 is equal to passing MenuGetActiveMenu(), except passing 0 is
> >faster :-)
>
> "don't do what the source does", "the source will lie and mislead
> you", "use only the documented API's" :P
>
> Razzing aside, is passing 0 to MenuEraseStatus() something that is
> reasonably expected to continue to work?
normally "0" in my books is NULL.. is it a known fact that
0 will always represent the current menu? if so, why have the
MenuGetActiveMenu() call?
what you said here is like telling every developer it is ok
to assume it is 0. if at sometime it breaks, and no longer
functions the same way.. everyone has to change their code.
i would sacrafice my 1 millesecond to make a call to
MenuGetActiveMenu() i think :>
az.
--
Aaron Ardiri
Lecturer http://www.hig.se/~ardiri/
University-College i G�vle mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SE 801 76 G�vle SWEDEN
Tel: +46 26 64 87 38 Fax: +46 26 64 87 88
Mob: +46 70 656 1143 A/H: +46 26 10 16 11
