Evening Wolfgang,
I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I was not reporting a bug and
I'm happy that you have taken the time to consider my simple example of what
was giving me grief.
I fully understand the problems of not being able to carry out validation at
setup time. Even if it
Afternoon Wolfgang,
Why doesn't WM_SETUP return an error? Often it doesn't have any clue as
to whether there was an error. It just converts one data structure to
another and presumes that the original data structure was OK.
I can understand this, up to a point, but there must be some
Am 23.04.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Wolf w...@wlenerz.com:
Hi Marcel,
so back then programmers were expected to
know what they're doing ;-)
Well that never worked, did it?
Really good comment, Wolfgang - Made my day!
___
QL-Users Mailing List
Hi,
Ok, I'm back.
I don't have much to contribute to what has already been said.
l
Why doesn't WM_SETUP return an error? Often it doesn't have any clue as
to whether there was an error. It just converts one data structure to
another and presumes that the original data structure was OK.
Hi Marcel,
so back then programmers were expected to
know what they're doing ;-)
Well that never worked, did it?
Ragards
Wolfgang
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Wolf wrote:
Why doesn't WM_SETUP return an error? Often it doesn't have any clue as
to whether there was an error.
That's one point, but also because not checking for errors speeds up
the code and makes it smaller. Remember that this was supposed to run
on 8Mhz and 128kb of ram, so back then