Corrected code included. Sigh. Any comments on the code? Good. Awful. Average. ...? Not for ego but for instruction. I try to learn from my peers and to collaborate on developing good quality software. If I miss the mark, I learn from your comments.
art -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I hope I've got the list address correct. If not, oh well. > > Anyhow, I looked at the code for GUI_Constants.cpp and noticed that where > were > 30 or so missing entries (WIN__GUI__*). The corrected code is included below. > > jez; > > Thanks for running your test on the number of calls. I wonder if you can do a > performance check? Something like: > start time > test > end time > > If the results are microscopically small, maybe you can do the test in a > loop? > Although I would like to continue sending code, testing performance is a good > way of separating qualitative issues from quantitative issues (whether I like > it > or it improves something). > > As a matter of guidance, is it better to include the code directly in the > e-mail > or to use a separate attachment? For whatever reason, there were no > objections > to using an attachment in my previous e-mail and I'll continue that here. But > I > did notice that the downloaded messaging from sourceforge had crazily > incorporated octets rather than ASCII. > > art >
GUI_Constants.cpp
Description: Binary data
