Re: [PATCH 2/2] d3dx9: Test penultimate declaration element in D3DXDeclaratorFromFVFTest.
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net writes:
Misha Koshelev wrote:
dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/mesh.c | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/mesh.c b/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/mesh.c index a2fb6d8..2952e23 100644 --- a/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/mesh.c +++ b/dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/mesh.c @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static void D3DXDeclaratorFromFVFTest(void) if (hr == D3D_OK) {
for (i=0; i<4; i++)
for (i=0; i<5; i++)I don't know about everyone else here, but I prefer to use less than or equal to, which I think is what was intended here. This positively states the upper bound, which is what I was taught in programming classes a long time ago (when ANSI C was still 89...)
Thus this would be
for (i=0; i<=4; i++)
There's no reason that this would be any better. Please don't give advice based on folklore you heard in programming classes.
That 'folklore' is called a best practice for programming in 'c'. Maybe things have changed since 1995, but I don't think this is one of them. However, each programmer has their own programming 'style'. They are neither right/wrong, but some are actually better than others. I could really 'bitch' about some of the tests, but this is not the place to do so, nor would it advance this project. I was trying to hand out advice, which YOU obviously think is wrong. Sorry, but I have book to back me up, it is called "Programming in ANSI C" and is dated in 1994.
James McKenzie
-
James Mckenzie