On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 23:45:11 -0500 Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Giel van Schijndel schreef: >> Dennis Schridde schreef: >> >>>> @Dennis: if I'm still being to fuzzy about this subject just >say so or >>>> ask a specific question >>>> >>> My problem is: What is your problem? ;) >>> >>> Really, I didn't get what the problem is... >>> That AL_INVALID is passed to some al* functions? >>> Shouldn't that be valid? >>> I mean if you pass an al* function AL_INVALID, doesn't it know >that this means >>> it is invalid and should not do anything? >>> Or is the problem that it doesn't know that? >>> >>> >> Firstly my problem is this: assigning a signed value to an >unsigned >> variable. >> Then secondly, for as far as I know the OpenAL functions don't >recognize >> AL_INVALID as being invalid (I'm quite sure of this for the 1.1 >version, >> or is it OpenAL 1.0 that WZ uses?).
This is nothing new is it? Lots of functions also can't tell if something is invalid, and that is why 99.9% of all the ones I have see require you to check the result. Using -1 is also standard AFAIK. It is easier to type that than 0xffffffffff. Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
