On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Matt Graham wrote:
> Palm Developer wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Chris Tutty wrote:
> >
> > #define MEMMOVE(d, s) MemMove(d, s, sizeof d)
>
> #define MEMMOVE(d,s) MemMove( &d, &s, sizeof(d) )
> this needs the & doesn't it?
>
indeed it does! one more reason to avoid it ;)
Palm Developer wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Chris Tutty wrote:
#define MEMMOVE(d, s) MemMove(d, s, sizeof d)
#define MEMMOVE(d,s) MemMove( &d, &s, sizeof(d) )
this needs the & doesn't it?
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com
(Adding wood to the impending fire...)
When you want to get into that level of abstraction, you should be looking
at C++, not C.
Alan
"Palm Developer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:105449@palm-dev-forum...
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Chris Tutty wrote:
>
> > >
> > True, but if you fo
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Chris Tutty wrote:
> >
> True, but if you forget that critical * the code will compile
> and run but not do what you want. I prefer the explicit
> type because it's harder to screw up. Hmm, what would
> be really cool is a pre-processor function to insert the
> type of a v
