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]

Reply via email to