Hi all,
I see this patch is in 'pending' now, are there anything needs to be
improved?
Please give me some advice.
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Jactry Zeng
Hi Nikolay,
2013/9/13 Nikolay Sivov bungleh...@gmail.com
Does it actually accept any other value besides CP_ACP or 1200?
Documentation is unclear here, and makes impression that only two these
values are valid.
Did you mean EM_SETTEXTEX?
I had some tests today. And I found native EM_SETTEXTEX
On 9/13/2013 13:27, Jactry Zeng wrote:
Re-based to latest git.
Does it actually accept any other value besides CP_ACP or 1200?
Documentation is unclear here, and makes impression that only two these
values are valid.
On 9/4/2013 21:16, Jactry Zeng wrote:
Hi Nikolay,
2013/9/5 Nikolay Sivov bungleh...@gmail.com
mailto:bungleh...@gmail.com
On 9/4/2013 07:17, Jactry Zeng wrote:
-ME_EndToUnicode(unicode, wszText);
+ME_EndToUnicode(unicode ? 1200 : CP_ACP, wszText);
It's still ugly to use
On 9/4/2013 07:17, Jactry Zeng wrote:
-ME_EndToUnicode(unicode, wszText);
+ME_EndToUnicode(unicode ? 1200 : CP_ACP, wszText);
It's still ugly to use magic numbers like that, in a similar situation I
had some time
ago I use ~0 to mark WCHAR data encoding that does need special
Hi Nikolay,
2013/9/5 Nikolay Sivov bungleh...@gmail.com
On 9/4/2013 07:17, Jactry Zeng wrote:
-ME_EndToUnicode(unicode, wszText);
+ME_EndToUnicode(unicode ? 1200 : CP_ACP, wszText);
It's still ugly to use magic numbers like that, in a similar situation I
had some time
ago
Hello,
-ME_EndToUnicode(unicode, wszText);
+unicode ? ME_EndToUnicode(1200, wszText) : ME_EndToUnicode(CP_ACP,
wszText);
Personally I dislike this stuff in C code. Especially when you could
make it shorter:
ME_EndToUnicode(unicode ? 1200 : CP_ACP, wszText)
-- Ph.
Hi Phil,
2013/9/4 Phil Krylov p...@newstar.rinet.ru
Hello,
-ME_EndToUnicode(unicode, wszText);
+unicode ? ME_EndToUnicode(1200, wszText) :
ME_EndToUnicode(CP_ACP, wszText);
Personally I dislike this stuff in C code. Especially when you could
make it shorter: