2006-04-23 18:26:03 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* sizetip.c - resize tips for PuTTY(tel) terminal window.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
|
1999-11-22 10:07:24 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <stdlib.h>
|
2001-09-07 22:49:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <tchar.h>
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "putty.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000-10-06 11:42:30 +00:00
|
|
|
static ATOM tip_class = 0;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2000-10-06 11:42:30 +00:00
|
|
|
static HFONT tip_font;
|
|
|
|
|
static COLORREF tip_bg;
|
|
|
|
|
static COLORREF tip_text;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2000-10-06 11:42:30 +00:00
|
|
|
static LRESULT CALLBACK SizeTipWndProc(HWND hWnd, UINT nMsg,
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (nMsg) {
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
case WM_ERASEBKGND:
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
return true;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
case WM_PAINT: {
|
|
|
|
|
HBRUSH hbr;
|
|
|
|
|
HGDIOBJ holdbr;
|
|
|
|
|
RECT cr;
|
|
|
|
|
int wtlen;
|
|
|
|
|
LPTSTR wt;
|
|
|
|
|
HDC hdc;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
PAINTSTRUCT ps;
|
|
|
|
|
hdc = BeginPaint(hWnd, &ps);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
SelectObject(hdc, tip_font);
|
|
|
|
|
SelectObject(hdc, GetStockObject(BLACK_PEN));
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
hbr = CreateSolidBrush(tip_bg);
|
|
|
|
|
holdbr = SelectObject(hdc, hbr);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
GetClientRect(hWnd, &cr);
|
|
|
|
|
Rectangle(hdc, cr.left, cr.top, cr.right, cr.bottom);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
wtlen = GetWindowTextLength(hWnd);
|
|
|
|
|
wt = (LPTSTR) snewn(wtlen + 1, TCHAR);
|
|
|
|
|
GetWindowText(hWnd, wt, wtlen + 1);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
SetTextColor(hdc, tip_text);
|
|
|
|
|
SetBkColor(hdc, tip_bg);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
TextOut(hdc, cr.left + 3, cr.top + 3, wt, wtlen);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
sfree(wt);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
SelectObject(hdc, holdbr);
|
|
|
|
|
DeleteObject(hbr);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
EndPaint(hWnd, &ps);
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
case WM_NCHITTEST:
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
return HTTRANSPARENT;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
case WM_DESTROY:
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
DeleteObject(tip_font);
|
|
|
|
|
tip_font = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
case WM_SETTEXT: {
|
|
|
|
|
LPCTSTR str = (LPCTSTR) lParam;
|
|
|
|
|
SIZE sz;
|
|
|
|
|
HDC hdc = CreateCompatibleDC(NULL);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
SelectObject(hdc, tip_font);
|
|
|
|
|
GetTextExtentPoint32(hdc, str, _tcslen(str), &sz);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
SetWindowPos(hWnd, NULL, 0, 0, sz.cx + 6, sz.cy + 6,
|
|
|
|
|
SWP_NOZORDER | SWP_NOMOVE | SWP_NOACTIVATE);
|
|
|
|
|
InvalidateRect(hWnd, NULL, false);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
DeleteDC(hdc);
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
break;
|
Formatting change to braces around one case of a switch.
Sometimes, within a switch statement, you want to declare local
variables specific to the handler for one particular case. Until now
I've mostly been writing this in the form
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED:
{
declare variables;
do stuff;
}
break;
}
which is ugly because the two pieces of essentially similar code
appear at different indent levels, and also inconvenient because you
have less horizontal space available to write the complicated case
handler in - particuarly undesirable because _complicated_ case
handlers are the ones most likely to need all the space they can get!
After encountering a rather nicer idiom in the LLVM source code, and
after a bit of hackery this morning figuring out how to persuade
Emacs's auto-indent to do what I wanted with it, I've decided to move
to an idiom in which the open brace comes right after the case
statement, and the code within it is indented the same as it would
have been without the brace. Then the whole case handler (including
the break) lives inside those braces, and you get something that looks
more like this:
switch (discriminant) {
case SIMPLE:
do stuff;
break;
case COMPLICATED: {
declare variables;
do stuff;
break;
}
}
This commit is a big-bang change that reformats all the complicated
case handlers I could find into the new layout. This is particularly
nice in the Pageant main function, in which almost _every_ case
handler had a bundle of variables and was long and complicated. (In
fact that's what motivated me to get round to this.) Some of the
innermost parts of the terminal escape-sequence handling are also
breathing a bit easier now the horizontal pressure on them is
relieved.
(Also, in a few cases, I was able to remove the extra braces
completely, because the only variable local to the case handler was a
loop variable which our new C99 policy allows me to move into the
initialiser clause of its for statement.)
Viewed with whitespace ignored, this is not too disruptive a change.
Downstream patches that conflict with it may need to be reapplied
using --ignore-whitespace or similar.
2020-02-16 07:49:52 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return DefWindowProc(hWnd, nMsg, wParam, lParam);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000-10-06 11:42:30 +00:00
|
|
|
static HWND tip_wnd = NULL;
|
Convert a lot of 'int' variables to 'bool'.
My normal habit these days, in new code, is to treat int and bool as
_almost_ completely separate types. I'm still willing to use C's
implicit test for zero on an integer (e.g. 'if (!blob.len)' is fine,
no need to spell it out as blob.len != 0), but generally, if a
variable is going to be conceptually a boolean, I like to declare it
bool and assign to it using 'true' or 'false' rather than 0 or 1.
PuTTY is an exception, because it predates the C99 bool, and I've
stuck to its existing coding style even when adding new code to it.
But it's been annoying me more and more, so now that I've decided C99
bool is an acceptable thing to require from our toolchain in the first
place, here's a quite thorough trawl through the source doing
'boolification'. Many variables and function parameters are now typed
as bool rather than int; many assignments of 0 or 1 to those variables
are now spelled 'true' or 'false'.
I managed this thorough conversion with the help of a custom clang
plugin that I wrote to trawl the AST and apply heuristics to point out
where things might want changing. So I've even managed to do a decent
job on parts of the code I haven't looked at in years!
To make the plugin's work easier, I pushed platform front ends
generally in the direction of using standard 'bool' in preference to
platform-specific boolean types like Windows BOOL or GTK's gboolean;
I've left the platform booleans in places they _have_ to be for the
platform APIs to work right, but variables only used by my own code
have been converted wherever I found them.
In a few places there are int values that look very like booleans in
_most_ of the places they're used, but have a rarely-used third value,
or a distinction between different nonzero values that most users
don't care about. In these cases, I've _removed_ uses of 'true' and
'false' for the return values, to emphasise that there's something
more subtle going on than a simple boolean answer:
- the 'multisel' field in dialog.h's list box structure, for which
the GTK front end in particular recognises a difference between 1
and 2 but nearly everything else treats as boolean
- the 'urgent' parameter to plug_receive, where 1 vs 2 tells you
something about the specific location of the urgent pointer, but
most clients only care about 0 vs 'something nonzero'
- the return value of wc_match, where -1 indicates a syntax error in
the wildcard.
- the return values from SSH-1 RSA-key loading functions, which use
-1 for 'wrong passphrase' and 0 for all other failures (so any
caller which already knows it's not loading an _encrypted private_
key can treat them as boolean)
- term->esc_query, and the 'query' parameter in toggle_mode in
terminal.c, which _usually_ hold 0 for ESC[123h or 1 for ESC[?123h,
but can also hold -1 for some other intervening character that we
don't support.
In a few places there's an integer that I haven't turned into a bool
even though it really _can_ only take values 0 or 1 (and, as above,
tried to make the call sites consistent in not calling those values
true and false), on the grounds that I thought it would make it more
confusing to imply that the 0 value was in some sense 'negative' or
bad and the 1 positive or good:
- the return value of plug_accepting uses the POSIXish convention of
0=success and nonzero=error; I think if I made it bool then I'd
also want to reverse its sense, and that's a job for a separate
piece of work.
- the 'screen' parameter to lineptr() in terminal.c, where 0 and 1
represent the default and alternate screens. There's no obvious
reason why one of those should be considered 'true' or 'positive'
or 'success' - they're just indices - so I've left it as int.
ssh_scp_recv had particularly confusing semantics for its previous int
return value: its call sites used '<= 0' to check for error, but it
never actually returned a negative number, just 0 or 1. Now the
function and its call sites agree that it's a bool.
In a couple of places I've renamed variables called 'ret', because I
don't like that name any more - it's unclear whether it means the
return value (in preparation) for the _containing_ function or the
return value received from a subroutine call, and occasionally I've
accidentally used the same variable for both and introduced a bug. So
where one of those got in my way, I've renamed it to 'toret' or 'retd'
(the latter short for 'returned') in line with my usual modern
practice, but I haven't done a thorough job of finding all of them.
Finally, one amusing side effect of doing this is that I've had to
separate quite a few chained assignments. It used to be perfectly fine
to write 'a = b = c = TRUE' when a,b,c were int and TRUE was just a
the 'true' defined by stdbool.h, that idiom provokes a warning from
gcc: 'suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value'!
2018-11-02 19:23:19 +00:00
|
|
|
static bool tip_enabled = false;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void UpdateSizeTip(HWND src, int cx, int cy)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
1999-11-11 10:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
TCHAR str[32];
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2001-05-06 14:35:20 +00:00
|
|
|
if (!tip_enabled)
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
return;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!tip_wnd) {
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
NONCLIENTMETRICS nci;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* First make sure the window class is registered */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!tip_class) {
|
|
|
|
|
WNDCLASS wc;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.style = CS_HREDRAW | CS_VREDRAW;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.lpfnWndProc = SizeTipWndProc;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.cbClsExtra = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.cbWndExtra = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.hInstance = hinst;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.hIcon = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.hCursor = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.hbrBackground = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.lpszMenuName = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
wc.lpszClassName = "SizeTipClass";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tip_class = RegisterClass(&wc);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
#if 0
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Default values based on Windows Standard color scheme */
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
tip_font = GetStockObject(SYSTEM_FONT);
|
|
|
|
|
tip_bg = RGB(255, 255, 225);
|
|
|
|
|
tip_text = RGB(0, 0, 0);
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Prepare other GDI objects and drawing info */
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
tip_bg = GetSysColor(COLOR_INFOBK);
|
|
|
|
|
tip_text = GetSysColor(COLOR_INFOTEXT);
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
memset(&nci, 0, sizeof(NONCLIENTMETRICS));
|
|
|
|
|
nci.cbSize = sizeof(NONCLIENTMETRICS);
|
|
|
|
|
SystemParametersInfo(SPI_GETNONCLIENTMETRICS,
|
|
|
|
|
sizeof(NONCLIENTMETRICS), &nci, 0);
|
|
|
|
|
tip_font = CreateFontIndirect(&nci.lfStatusFont);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Generate the tip text */
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
1999-11-11 10:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
sprintf(str, "%dx%d", cx, cy);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!tip_wnd) {
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
HDC hdc;
|
|
|
|
|
SIZE sz;
|
|
|
|
|
RECT wr;
|
|
|
|
|
int ix, iy;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
/* calculate the tip's size */
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
hdc = CreateCompatibleDC(NULL);
|
|
|
|
|
GetTextExtentPoint32(hdc, str, _tcslen(str), &sz);
|
|
|
|
|
DeleteDC(hdc);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
GetWindowRect(src, &wr);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
ix = wr.left;
|
|
|
|
|
if (ix < 16)
|
|
|
|
|
ix = 16;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
iy = wr.top - sz.cy;
|
|
|
|
|
if (iy < 16)
|
|
|
|
|
iy = 16;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Create the tip window */
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
tip_wnd =
|
|
|
|
|
CreateWindowEx(WS_EX_TOOLWINDOW | WS_EX_TOPMOST,
|
|
|
|
|
MAKEINTRESOURCE(tip_class), str, WS_POPUP, ix,
|
|
|
|
|
iy, sz.cx, sz.cy, NULL, NULL, hinst, NULL);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
ShowWindow(tip_wnd, SW_SHOWNOACTIVATE);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Tip already exists, just set the text */
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
SetWindowText(tip_wnd, str);
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convert a lot of 'int' variables to 'bool'.
My normal habit these days, in new code, is to treat int and bool as
_almost_ completely separate types. I'm still willing to use C's
implicit test for zero on an integer (e.g. 'if (!blob.len)' is fine,
no need to spell it out as blob.len != 0), but generally, if a
variable is going to be conceptually a boolean, I like to declare it
bool and assign to it using 'true' or 'false' rather than 0 or 1.
PuTTY is an exception, because it predates the C99 bool, and I've
stuck to its existing coding style even when adding new code to it.
But it's been annoying me more and more, so now that I've decided C99
bool is an acceptable thing to require from our toolchain in the first
place, here's a quite thorough trawl through the source doing
'boolification'. Many variables and function parameters are now typed
as bool rather than int; many assignments of 0 or 1 to those variables
are now spelled 'true' or 'false'.
I managed this thorough conversion with the help of a custom clang
plugin that I wrote to trawl the AST and apply heuristics to point out
where things might want changing. So I've even managed to do a decent
job on parts of the code I haven't looked at in years!
To make the plugin's work easier, I pushed platform front ends
generally in the direction of using standard 'bool' in preference to
platform-specific boolean types like Windows BOOL or GTK's gboolean;
I've left the platform booleans in places they _have_ to be for the
platform APIs to work right, but variables only used by my own code
have been converted wherever I found them.
In a few places there are int values that look very like booleans in
_most_ of the places they're used, but have a rarely-used third value,
or a distinction between different nonzero values that most users
don't care about. In these cases, I've _removed_ uses of 'true' and
'false' for the return values, to emphasise that there's something
more subtle going on than a simple boolean answer:
- the 'multisel' field in dialog.h's list box structure, for which
the GTK front end in particular recognises a difference between 1
and 2 but nearly everything else treats as boolean
- the 'urgent' parameter to plug_receive, where 1 vs 2 tells you
something about the specific location of the urgent pointer, but
most clients only care about 0 vs 'something nonzero'
- the return value of wc_match, where -1 indicates a syntax error in
the wildcard.
- the return values from SSH-1 RSA-key loading functions, which use
-1 for 'wrong passphrase' and 0 for all other failures (so any
caller which already knows it's not loading an _encrypted private_
key can treat them as boolean)
- term->esc_query, and the 'query' parameter in toggle_mode in
terminal.c, which _usually_ hold 0 for ESC[123h or 1 for ESC[?123h,
but can also hold -1 for some other intervening character that we
don't support.
In a few places there's an integer that I haven't turned into a bool
even though it really _can_ only take values 0 or 1 (and, as above,
tried to make the call sites consistent in not calling those values
true and false), on the grounds that I thought it would make it more
confusing to imply that the 0 value was in some sense 'negative' or
bad and the 1 positive or good:
- the return value of plug_accepting uses the POSIXish convention of
0=success and nonzero=error; I think if I made it bool then I'd
also want to reverse its sense, and that's a job for a separate
piece of work.
- the 'screen' parameter to lineptr() in terminal.c, where 0 and 1
represent the default and alternate screens. There's no obvious
reason why one of those should be considered 'true' or 'positive'
or 'success' - they're just indices - so I've left it as int.
ssh_scp_recv had particularly confusing semantics for its previous int
return value: its call sites used '<= 0' to check for error, but it
never actually returned a negative number, just 0 or 1. Now the
function and its call sites agree that it's a bool.
In a couple of places I've renamed variables called 'ret', because I
don't like that name any more - it's unclear whether it means the
return value (in preparation) for the _containing_ function or the
return value received from a subroutine call, and occasionally I've
accidentally used the same variable for both and introduced a bug. So
where one of those got in my way, I've renamed it to 'toret' or 'retd'
(the latter short for 'returned') in line with my usual modern
practice, but I haven't done a thorough job of finding all of them.
Finally, one amusing side effect of doing this is that I've had to
separate quite a few chained assignments. It used to be perfectly fine
to write 'a = b = c = TRUE' when a,b,c were int and TRUE was just a
the 'true' defined by stdbool.h, that idiom provokes a warning from
gcc: 'suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value'!
2018-11-02 19:23:19 +00:00
|
|
|
void EnableSizeTip(bool bEnable)
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (tip_wnd && !bEnable) {
|
2019-09-08 19:29:00 +00:00
|
|
|
DestroyWindow(tip_wnd);
|
|
|
|
|
tip_wnd = NULL;
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
1999-11-08 11:13:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
1999-11-03 14:08:26 +00:00
|
|
|
tip_enabled = bEnable;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|