On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:33:33AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On November 17, 2003 10:16 am, Huw D M Davies wrote: > > + if (LISTBOX_GetItemRect( descr, index, &rect ) == 1) > > OK, I very sorry to nick pick so much, but this test is not > only strange in C, but it's a bit dangerous as well, since > in the future LISTBOX_GetItemRect may return something >1 > for TRUE, and things will break silently. Why not the more > common: > if (LISTBOX_GetItemRect( descr, index, &rect ))
I guess that's because there are several other calls to LISTBOX_GetItemRect that have the same syntax. Note that LISTBOX_GetItemRect can return -1 on error. Huw. -- Huw Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
