[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef: > 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. > Yes, true, the problem, however, is that here we are talking about function parameters rather than function results. > Using -1 is also standard AFAIK. It is easier to type that than > 0xffffffffff. Yes typing -1 is indeed easier than typing 0xffffffffff. It is also incorrect when you try to assign -1 to an unsigned variable, assigning ~0 to an unsigned variable on the other hand _is_ correct. So simply put: don't assign -1 to unsigned variables, use ~0 for that purpose.
-- Giel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
