Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > + if (((tvItem->mask & TVIF_CHILDREN ) && (originalItem.cChildren > != wineItem->cChildren ) ) || > + ((tvItem->mask & TVIF_IMAGE ) && (originalItem.iImage > != wineItem->iImage )&& > + wineItem->iImage != I_IMAGECALLBACK > ) || > + ((tvItem->mask & TVIF_SELECTEDIMAGE) && > (originalItem.iSelectedImage != wineItem->iSelectedImage)&& > + wineItem->iSelectedImage != I_IMAGECALLBACK > ) || > + ((tvItem->mask & TVIF_TEXT ) && (originalItem.pszText > != wineItem->pszText )&& > + wineItem->pszText != LPSTR_TEXTCALLBACKW > ) || > + ((tvItem->mask & TVIF_INTEGRAL ) && (originalItem.iIntegral > != wineItem->iIntegral ) ) || > + ((tvItem->mask & TVIF_STATE ) && ((originalItem.state ^ > wineItem->state) & tvItem->stateMask )) > + )
That's one ugly if... I'd suggest abstracting that test into a separate inline function. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]