|
Maximilien wrote:
Is it necessary ( or preferred ) to call DestroyWindow ( or something else ) on each child modeless dialog ?
No, they will be destroyed automatically. In fact, they will be destroyed before the parent window is destroyed.
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
Which is easier with Tab Interface, MDI or SDI?
I want something very similar to Excel except each sheet will be doing different stuff instead of same spreadsheet.
MDI
http://www.codeproject.com/tabctrl/mditabs.asp
SDI
http://www.codeproject.com/tabctrl/foldertabcontrol.asp
|
|
|
|
|
I need to parse and generate XML documents, do you have any tip on a good performance library for that ?
The development platform are Visual C++ 6.0 and Visual Basic 6.0 (no .NET).
Thanks for any help !
GuimaSun
www.nexsun.com.br
NEXSUN TechZone
|
|
|
|
|
I've been very happy with Xerces[^]. It's faster than MSXML and is open-source to boot.
/ravi
My new year's resolution: 2048 x 1536
Home | Articles | Freeware | Music
ravib@ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
There's some sample code on MSDN that I can't get to compile. It says that there's a problem with the KbdFunc line:
_beginthread( BounceProc, 0, &ThreadNr );
specifically, error C2664: '_beginthread' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'void (char *)' to 'void (__cdecl *)(void *)' None of the functions with this name in scope match the target type
Any idea why? All I did was paste the code into an empty project and set the runtime library to /MTd. Please let me know what I need to do to fix it and what that error actually means.
I'm using Visual Studio .NET 2002.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC Visual Studio 7.0 (2002) was the first version to set the /TP switch in the compiler options by default. This tells the compiler to compile code as C++ regardless of the file extension.
One of the few incompatibilities between C and C++ is that in C, you can implicitly convert from a void* to any other pointer type. C++ requires a cast. The sample code suggests a filename of bounce.c, which would cause the compiler to compile the code as C if the /TP switch is not supplied.
To fix this, change the declaration of BounceProc to
void BounceProc( void *pvParam ) and add a declaration at the top of the function body:
char* MyID = (char*) pvParam; If you still get errors, for example referencing __stdcall, you should explicitly add __cdecl to the BounceProc declaration.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed it right up. Thanks!
I'm trying to wrap my brain around some of this threading business and there seem to be a hundred different ways of doing it. What do you suppose is the best way for a beginner to figure it out?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone
What I have is a vb program that I am converting to visual C++
iv done most of the convert but am having a problem with this one. All I want to do is when my VC++ program runs that it show the current
Month Day Year in seperate boxes here is the vb code.
Public Sub today()
'Get today's date from system
Dim currentdate, tempDay, tempMonth, tempYear As String
Dim tempDate As String
Dim location, StrLen As Integer
Dim convert_month As String
tempDate = Date$
tempMonth = Month(CDate(tempDate))
tempDay = Day(CDate(tempDate))
tempYear = Year(CDate(tempDate))
currentdate = tempMonth & "/" & tempDay & "/" & tempYear
StrLen = Len(currentdate)
location = InStr(currentdate, "/")
txtMonth.Text = Left(currentdate, location - 1)
convert_month = Convert_Date_Int2Str(txtMonth.Text)
txtMonth.Text = convert_month
currentdate = Right(currentdate, StrLen - location)
location = InStr(currentdate, "/")
txtDay.Text = Left(currentdate, location - 1)
currentdate = Right(currentdate, 2)
If (CInt(currentdate) < 90) Then
txtyear.Text = "20" & currentdate
Else
txtyear.Text = "19" & currentdate
End If
'
End Sub
any help is appreciated 
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand this correctly, you just want to grab the current time and display it in edit boxes.
To display the entire date in a single box:
(editcontrolstring is the CString variable associated with the edit box.)
CTime tDate = CTime::GetCurrentTime();<br />
CString strDate = tDate.Format( "%B %d, %Y" );
editcontrolstring = strDate;
Now, to break it down a little more, you can do something like this:
CTime tDate = CTime::GetCurrentTime();<br />
CString strDate = tDate.Format( "%B" );
editcontrolmonthstring = strDate;<br />
strDate = tDate.Format( "%d" );
editcontroldaystring = strDate;
And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
hiho@ll
i'm trying to hide a dialog through command line
i'm using the void OnShowWindow(BOOL bShow,UINT nStatus); event
void OnShowWindow(BOOL bShow,UINT nStatus){
if(hide)
bShow=false;
CDialog::OnShowWindow(bShow,nStatus);
}
what i want:
if the command line says the dialog should not be displayed
i set a bool variable hide=true
and (i think) every time the dialog should be displayed the OnShowWindow function is called!?
my OnShowWindow gets called one time
i set the bShow to false
and then the window is displayed
is there another event which displays the dialog window?
thx
|
|
|
|
|
try SetWindowPos().....
cheerz.....
"faith, hope, love remain, these three.....; but the greatest of these is love" -1 Corinthians 13:13
|
|
|
|
|
IS it possible to fit a dialog into a view?.
or if there is any other way to implement this requirement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it is working thank u.but my exact requirement is
to put a multiple dialog into a view.Is it possible to fit a property sheet or tabbed control into a view.
|
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
I have 2 constructors of the same class:
CTest(){i = j = 0;};
CTest(int t){j = t;};
It is possible to call the first constructor in the second constructor?
Of course, I can make an Initialize() method and I can call it in the both constructors.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
yes u can call one constructor from an another constructor.....
class xyz
{
.....
....
...
..
.
xyz()
{
i
}
xyz(int j)
{
xyz();
..
.
}
};
"faith, hope, love remain, these three.....; but the greatest of these is love" -1 Corinthians 13:13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but that link is not correct. at least not completely.
The way to call one constructor from another is to use "placement new".
For example:
Foo::Foo()
{
int i;
new (this)Foo(i); // this will call the Foo::Foo(int) ctor without allocating memory
}
Foo::Foo(int)
{
}
This begs the question of why you want to do this. If it is for "common" initialization code, the better answer is to have a separate initialization function, as in the following. Then call that init code either from each ctor, or perhaps better, to call it from the places where Foo is constructed. then maybe handle init failures there.
bool Foo:init(some parameters here maybe)
{
// do init code here
}
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you can call a constructor from the object itself. A constructor is just another function/method, but is called by the memory allocation scheme (IE: Operator new).
You can also call the destructor any time you want, as a standard object method (EX: pMyObj->~MyObject(); ).
Why would you want to do this? Consider the following: You want to allocate memory dynamically in a busy, multithreaded environment. Therefore, you want to avoid the heap. So, you decide dynamically allocate memory from the stack using _alloca(). In order to initialize this "object", you need to call the constructor. Also, when you are finished with this object, you MUST NOT "delete" it, but you should destroy it properly by calling the destructor.
A non-tested example for thought purposes:
#define STACK_OBJECT_NEW(c, p) {p = (c *)_alloca(sizeof(c)); if (p) p->c(); }
#define STACK_OBJECT_DELETE(c, p) {if (p) p->~c(); }
void MyFunc()
{
MyClass *p = NULL;
STACK_OBJECT_NEW(MyClass, p);
if (p)
{
p->InvokeSomeMethod();
...
STACK_OBJECT_DELETE(MyClass, p);
}
}
onwards and upwards...
|
|
|
|
|
We all know now that you are a guru. But keep the hack to yourself next time!
|
|
|
|
|
you don't like my "hack"? 
onwards and upwards...
|
|
|
|
|
ahz wrote:
The way to call one constructor from another is to use "placement new".
This is incorrect.
Herb Sutter - the current chairman of the C++ standards committee described this 'anti-idiom' as 'an abomination' and 'abhorrent' in the article 'delegating constructors' C/C++ Users Journal May 2003. For any data members that are not POD, this approach will fail, because the destructor of that data members will run only once, while the constructors will have run twice
To the initial poster. The only way to solve this problem is with an initialization function, but you must also ensure that that function is not virtual.
|
|
|
|
|
It may be frowned upon, and may even be abhorent, but is it not incorrect.
The original poster asked a simple direct technical question and I gave a simple direct techinically correct answer.
It is correct C++ syntax, it is technically correct, and it works --- albeit for simple cases.
I wouldn't use it, and don't recommend it --- for Herb Sutters reasons --- and for many of my own reasons that I won't belabor here.
However, I agree the best way to solve the issue is with an initialization function. However, I don't think it necessarily needs to be non-virtual. Depends on where you are calling the function from. If from the ctor, then yes make sure it's non-virtual. If from outside the ctor (the method I recommend, then it's ok to be virtual).
|
|
|
|
|
ahz wrote:
It may be frowned upon, and may even be abhorent, but is it not incorrect.
The original poster asked a simple direct technical question and I gave a simple direct techinically correct answer.
Wrong, wrong, wrong   
From: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.3[^]
<quote>
"BTW do NOT try to achieve this via placement new. Some people think they can say new(this) Foo(x, int(x)+7) within the body of Foo::Foo(char). However that is bad, bad, bad. Please don't write me and tell me that it seems to work on your particular version of your particular compiler; it's bad. Constructors do a bunch of little magical things behind the scenes, but that bad technique steps on those partially constructed bits. Just say no."
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you can't read.
It is correct.
Whether you should do it is another thing altogether.
LEARN TO READ!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
