On 18/12/2011 18:30, Al Le wrote:
I'm glad you brought this up, I double checked the code and discovered
I'd made some false assumptions.
Glad to hear that! What about the "embed_cuesheet" vs. "embedded_cuesheet"?
You've got a point, though I haven't got around to go through renaming
it yet.
> I'm glad you brought this up, I double checked the code and discovered
> I'd made some false assumptions.
Glad to hear that! What about the "embed_cuesheet" vs. "embedded_cuesheet"?
--
NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie!
Jetzt informieren: http://ww
On 17/12/2011 15:19, Al Le wrote:
Is it a typo or an intended code (it occurs twice)?
I'm glad you brought this up, I double checked the code and discovered
I'd made some false assumptions.
Hopefully the new code is a bit clearer too.
On 17/12/2011 15:19, Al Le wrote:
Is it a typo or an intended code (it occurs twice)?
cuesheet_offset += cuesheet_offset+1;
Shouldn't it be "cuesheet_offset += 1;"?
Or is the code correct because it is in the branch for UTF16, i.e. two
bytes per character?
I'm just asking for the case.
It's
Is it a typo or an intended code (it occurs twice)?
cuesheet_offset += cuesheet_offset+1;
Shouldn't it be "cuesheet_offset += 1;"?
Or is the code correct because it is in the branch for UTF16, i.e. two
bytes per character?
I'm just asking for the case.
