On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Juan Lang wrote:
Hi Peter, there's nothing magical in here, your understanding is correct. I'll answer each question individually though.
1) I am wondering, why sizeof(ptr->Adaptername) is used instead of MAX_ADAPTER_NAME_LENGTH+1?
That's just a style thing. I prefer sizeof(thing being copied) to MAGIC_CONSTANT in case the structure being used changes. That's unlikely in this case since the structure is defined in a public header.
It's not that unlikely. Microsoft has extended some of their structures many times in the past. That's why some of them have have these cbSize fields.
-- Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/ We are Pentium of Borg. You will be approximated. Division is futile.
