DeMoN LaG wrote: > > JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08 > Jan 2002: > > > Well, until you try to run/unizp whatever you downloaded and > > Windows/Winzip tells you it's short. Here's an interim patch until > > future civilizations rediscover the magic of ZMODEM and are able to > > resume failed file transfers. You're more than welcome: > > > > if(DownloadFailed) > > { > > MessageBox(NULL, "Download failed.", NULL, MB_OK); > > DeleteFile(LocalDownloadFilename); > > } > > > > Please check this in sometime before the Rapture. > > > > Where is "DownloadFailed" and "LocalDownloadFilename" declared?
Somewhere towards the back. You do five CVS updates a day, you tell me! > What > type of object are they? DownloadFailed is a bool. LocalDownloadFilename is a std::string or something derived therefrom. Oh wait, we're in Mozillala-land now. Let's see, I'll take a WAG: DownloadFailed is an instance of the XUL interpreter, LocalDownloadFilename is a reversed-order EBCDIC-encoded string (the latter in order to be maximally and equally incompatible with all current known OSs). > And where is |DeleteFile| defined? windows.h IIRC. > I'm > assuming it takes the type of object that LocalDownloadFilename is, or > else it wouldn't even compile. Right. Well, if LocalDownloadFilename is in fact a std:string, you'll need to do a .c_str(). But those details are for the paid employees to work out. Sometime before the Second Coming of Christ hopefully, but whenever. > You seem to think you are some sort of > hotshot with the fake code. Well hell, anyone can do: > > checkURL(url); > drawURLOnScreen(url); > What the hell is that suppose to do? That's not going to warn anybody if their download failed, let alone remove the useless partial-file! Sharpen up here LaG. > shit, I just wrote a web browser, didn't I? No, you just did nothing at all. > Who cares if I don't know > how to define those functions, I do. AOL probably does too - send them a resume, I think not being able to define functions is the top thing they're looking for. > or don't understand how most aspects of a > web browser work, I just wrote two undeclared, undefined functions using > arbitrary names I pulled out of my head after 14 hours at work today and > I'm a genius for writing a web browser in under 10 seconds. Whoopity > do. What's wrong, can't find any cache problems or context menus to > complain about today? > Do you ever ask yourself why you work 14-hour days at a grocery store? You just told the rest of us the answer. And pay attention LaG - they *fixed* the no-context-menu defect like a week ago, after I brought it up loudly. And not a second before. Cache is of course still broken as you say, but whaddaya want for nothin'? Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrubbba biscuit?
