Re: Double buffering

[Henk Jonas]

gnah, it isn't logical, at least for me. I don't have to supply this obscure pointer or what ever the return value from WinScreenLock is for anything. Not even for WinScreenUnlock. Therefore it comes to my mind, this return value is of no use at all. I would assume the OS takes care of any fail-things at WinScreenUnlock on its own.
Anyway, I learned WinScreenLock/Unlock suck big times and I promise I will never use it again, sigh.

Henk

John Marshall wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:50:17PM +0100, Aaron Ardiri wrote:

of course.. you shouldn't call WinScreenUnlock() if the WinScreenLock()
operation failed :) logical? :)

Yes!  It's logical because if WinScreenLock() failed, then the screen
isn't locked and doesn't need unlocking.  It's a very common idiom:
don't call fclose() if fopen() failed; don't call free() if malloc()
failed; etc, etc.

those API's are a nightmare to work with, and, quite frankly - they
suck.

But nonetheless I'm sure you're right and they're a nightmare to work
with for lots of other reasons :-).

    John

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                       www.metaviewsoft.de

<A HREF="http://www.handango.com/PlatformTopSoftware.jsp?authorId=95946";>
<IMG SRC="http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jonash/werbung_palmos.jpg";></A>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/