On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:32:12PM +0200, Jehan wrote: > Ok, I am a little stupid. Here is how NoSymbol is defined: > > /usr/include/X11/X.h > 1: 146 #define NoSymbol 0L /* special KeySym */ > > So this is simply a Nul and our code is OK. Yet even though it will > probably work on most (if not all?!) implementations, I would suggest > to change anyway the test for a NoSymbol for logical reason (the > definition tells us it returns NoSymbol, not 0L; hence we should not > care how it is implemented in the reality because this is not > guaranteed to stay as is).
Yes of course. I'm not sure that 0L == NoSymbol on other implementations of X, GI -- Reality is the illusion caused by the lack of alcohol.
pgpo9tXBJsEAf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________ Materm-devel mailing list Materm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/materm-devel mrxvt home page: http://materm.sourceforge.net
