On 04/17/13 18:18, larmbr zhan wrote:
+    double tmp;
+    WCHAR trueW[] = {'T','r','u','e','\0'};
+    WCHAR falseW[] = {'F','a','l','s','e','\0'};
+
+    TRACE("%s\n", debugstr_variant(arg));
+
+    assert(args_cnt == 1);
+
+    switch(V_VT(arg)) {
+    case VT_I2:
+        tmp = V_I2(arg);
+        break;
+    case VT_I4:
+        tmp = V_I4(arg);
+        break;

I don't think converting to double is a good idea here. Why don't you do conversions directly to BOOL for all cases?

+    case VT_R4:
+        tmp = V_R4(arg);
+        break;
+    case VT_R8:
+        tmp = V_R8(arg);
+        break;
+    default:
+        ERR("Not a numeric vaule: %s\n", debugstr_variant(arg));
+        return E_FAIL;
+    }
+
+    if (tmp < 0.0 || tmp > 0.0)
+        str = SysAllocString(trueW);
+    else
+        str = SysAllocString(falseW);
+
+
+    return return_bstr(res, str);

Are you sure you want to return string type here? I'd expect a bool value (of type VT_BOOL) here...

 }
 
 static HRESULT Global_CByte(vbdisp_t *This, VARIANT *arg, unsigned args_cnt, VARIANT *res)
diff --git a/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs b/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs
index 6bd4065..9b25e87 100644
--- a/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs
+++ b/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs
@@ -442,4 +442,9 @@ Call ok(CInt(36.50) = 36, "CInt(36.50) = " & CInt(36.50))
 Call ok(CInt(36.75) = 37, "CInt(36.75) = " & CInt(36.75))
 Call ok(CInt(300) = 300, "CInt(300) = " & CInt(300))
 Call ok(CInt(-300) = -300, "CInt(-300) = " & CInt(-300))
+
+Call ok(CBool(5) = "True", "CBool(5) = " & CBool(5))
+Call ok(CBool(0) = "False", "CBool(0) = " & CBool(0))
+Call ok(CBool(-5) = "True", "CBool(-5) = " & CBool(-5))
...and that's why getVT(...) test would be nice here.

Thanks,
Jacek