2 Nov
2012
2 Nov
'12
12:12 a.m.
You reversed the sense of comparison,
strcmp(w->name(), args[0]) meaning "is not equal".
Correct:
if (0 == strcmp(w->name(), args[0]) && w->className() ==
"PopupMenu")
In any case, this seems a workaround. I guess that args[0] is TQString, so the
comparison should be valid. Try to reverse order of arguments, like:
if (args[0] == w->name() && w->className() == "PopupMenu")
Thank you much for coaching. Very much! :)
My original proposed patch failed because I received the same warning message with the
patch. The problematic comparison causing the warning message is the second part of the
AND, not the first part. My original proposed patch:
- if (w->name() == args[0] && w->className() ==
"PopupMenu")
+ if (strcmp(w->name(), args[0]) && w->className() ==
"PopupMenu")
My new patch:
- if (w->name() == args[0] && w->className() ==
"PopupMenu")
+ if (w->name() == args[0] && strcmp(w->className(),
"PopupMenu"))
That revision resulted in no warning message during the build. However, after reading your
explanation I now am concerned that the patch is incorrect.
From what I have read, in C++ the strcmp function returns three possible values. If I
understand correctly, the strcmp function returns zero when the two strings are equal, a
-1 when the first string is alphabetically "less than" the first string and a
positive value when the first string is alphabetically "greater than" the second
string.
AND statements are used to produce only one true result: when both condition A and
condition B are true. In our tdewebdev code the only time condition B [ w->className()
== "PopupMenu" ] is true is when the strcmp result is compared to a value. As I
don't yet read C++ code very well, I don't know the intent of the code, but
I'm guessing the following is the intent:
- if (w->name() == args[0] && w->className() ==
"PopupMenu")
+ if (w->name() == args[0] && ( strcmp(w->className(),
"PopupMenu")) == 0 )
Does that look correct? :)
Darrell