From: Marcus M. <ma...@je...> - 2006-10-03 14:23:16
|
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Joerg Hoh wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:49:24PM +0000, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > + case MNOTE_NIKON_TAG_EXPOSUREDIFF: { > > + unsigned char a,b,c,d; > > + CF (entry->format, EXIF_FORMAT_UNDEFINED, v, maxlen); > > + CC (entry->components, 4, v, maxlen); > > + vl = exif_get_long (entry->data, entry->order); > > + a = (vl>>24)&0xff; b = (vl>>16)&0xff; c = (vl>>8)&0xff; d = (vl)&0xff; > > + snprintf (v, maxlen, "%.1f", c?(float)a*((float)b/(float)c):0 ); > > + break; > > + } > > + case MNOTE_NIKON_TAG_LENS_FSTOPS: { > > + unsigned char a,b,c,d; > > + CF (entry->format, EXIF_FORMAT_UNDEFINED, v, maxlen); > > + CC (entry->components, 4, v, maxlen); > > + vl = exif_get_long (entry->data, entry->order); > > + a = (vl>>24)&0xff; b = (vl>>16)&0xff; c = (vl>>8)&0xff; d = (vl)&0xff; > > + snprintf (v, maxlen, "%.2f", c?(float)a*((float)b/(float)c):0 ); > > + break; > > + } > > What's the difference in this 2 case statements? It looks pretty much like > copy & paste code (see indentation). The only difference I found is the > number of digits in the snprintf statement. True. I have merged both cases. Ciao, Marcus |