On 11/11/18 1:05 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:46 PM Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com wrote:
On 11/8/18 2:39 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
@@ -919,6 +919,9 @@ static INT LISTBOX_FindString( LB_DESCR *descr, INT start, LPCWSTR str, BOOL exa } else {
if (descr->style & LBS_NODATA)return LB_ERR;if (exact && (descr->style & LBS_SORT)) /* If sorted, use a WM_COMPAREITEM binary search */ return LISTBOX_FindStringPos( descr, str, TRUE );@@ -2450,7 +2453,7 @@ static LRESULT LISTBOX_HandleChar( LB_DESCR *descr, WCHAR charW ) (LPARAM)descr->self ); if (caret == -2) return 0; }
- if (caret == -1)
- if (caret == -1 && !(descr->style & LBS_NODATA)) caret = LISTBOX_FindString( descr, descr->focus_item, str, FALSE); if (caret != -1) {
Does it have to be deep in message handler? Can we skip right away if we have to?
No it doesn't have to be, it can be moved to the top of the function, I'll do that.
Thanks.
Also same issue, these are easily separable changes.
If you are referring to the caret == -1 change in HandleChar, then it's actually useless and can be skipped completely, since LB_ERR is -1 already.
I had it done probably because when I also made the user32 changes, it had to set last error (but *only* the user32 variant does that, when I tested), so it only makes sense there. I'll remove it for comctl32.
Right, I included some last error tests in v5 patches. It's clearly different between user32 and newer variant, and I don't see any existing tests for that in user32.