|
I have not used that so far. But I'm quite sure that the arrow keys are used to select cells when the Shift key is pressed too.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it is my mistake !!! : I already have an accelerator, shift + left key, on menu item command ... if this is the cause, is there any possibility to know in CGridCtrlExt, of on CDialog which contain this control, to know when I pressed Shift and left key ?
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a global accelerator you have three options:
- From the accelerator handling check if your grid control is active and pass the message to that if so
- Add another accelerator table to your grid control
- Use PreTranslateMessage in your grid control
|
|
|
|
|
I will try your first solution. I'll come back.
|
|
|
|
|
Because left/right key combined with shift/ctrl key are used to mark grid cells, I have chose to use F7/F8 key for my needs. Thank you all of you for patience and attention. Bye.
|
|
|
|
|
I have just tried this and it all works as per the documentation. I can only assume that these keys are being trapped by the CGridCtrlExt control somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
Neither CGridCtrlExt has PreTranslateMessage, or something that could trap the shift key ... I can not understand what happen ...
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have the source of that class to check? The only real answer is to use your debugger and inspect all the values that are set when the key combination is pressed.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I found the problem:
[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently compiler does not like to have both constructor and class variable names <b>to be same</b>.
this->variable_name = variable_name
I am using "this" pointer to pass / copy parameters passed to class constructor so they can be accessed by class methods.
I have managed to do it for simple int
Here is the declaration of int disp_x_size_, disp_y_size_; in the class
int disp_x_size_, disp_y_size_; //size x y
int *ControlPin; // control pins array
int *DB; // data bus pins array
and here is how I use "this" pointer in the constructor :
this->disp_x_size_ = disp_x_size_; // class local variable = paramater passed to constructor
works fine.
Now I tried to do same for passed pointer - for ControlPin declaration see above and here is the "this" pointer code
this->ControlPin = ControlPin;
this->DB = DB;
Compiles OK , but when I try to use it all I am getting is the actual content of the first member of the array. I have limited ways to check the pointer.
When I try to actually use it in this function
LCD_Write_COM_DATA_t(ControlPin, DB , (uint32_t)0x44, (uint32_t) ((x2 << 8) + x1),16); // horizontal RAM address position
it does not compile with the following error
C:\DOCUME~1\Vaclav\LOCALS~1\Temp\build5821005168044960715.tmp\sketch\A.h: In member function 'void TFT_LCD::setXY(word, word, word, word)':
C:\DOCUME~1\Vaclav\LOCALS~1\Temp\build5821005168044960715.tmp\sketch\A.h:9297:87: error: no matching function for call to 'TFT_LCD::LCD_Write_COM_DATA_t(<b>int*&, int*&,</b> uint32_t, uint32_t, int)'
LCD_Write_COM_DATA_t(ControlPin, DB , (uint32_t)0x44, (uint32_t) ((x2 << 8) + x1),16); // horizontal RAM address position
I believe that instead of simple int* I am passing the contents of the first array member int*&
which obviously is not the TYPE expected by the template function.( And I can verify that)
BTW that function works when correct TYPE pointer is passed to it.
I basically need someone to explain to me what am I doing wrong using "this" pointer that I end up with int*& instead of just int*.
I hope it makes sense, if not I can explain it more. But don't ask for full code - it is now over 10000 lines of giant mess
Appreciate any help, as always
Cheers
Vaclav
-- modified 20-Sep-15 11:25am.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaclav_Sal wrote: what am I doing wrong using "this"
Nothing. this is merely a pointer to the data space of 'this' object, when in the code of that object, i.e. inside the methods declared in the class. Using it in the constructor has no relevance to your problem. The problem is that your call to LCD_Write_COM_DATA_t contains parameters that do not match the declaration of the method.
Taker a look at Pointer to Pointer and Reference to Pointer[^] for an explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
"contains parameters that do not match the declaration of the method."
Sorry, but it is just the opposite.
The method is OK, it's the wrong parameters I am passing in and I really do not know why.
I do not want contents , I need pointer to the array.
If I change the method I would have to rebuild it so it will take a contents, not pointer.
I'll take a look at the reference, thanks you for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaclav_Sal wrote: The method is OK, it's the wrong parameters I am passing in
That's what I said.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaclav_Sal wrote: Apparently compiler does not like to have both constructor and class variable names to be same
Not true, it does not matter. That is why you need to use the this pointer, so the compiler knows which variable you are referring to. Consider the following:
Class Foo
{
int var1;
foo(int var1)
{
var1 = var1; this->var1 = var1; }
None of which has any relevance to the issue you are describing. Forget about what goes on in the constructor, it is not connected to the probelm. You need to go back to the documentation and check carefully the definition of the TFT_LCD::LCD_Write_COM_DATA_t method.
|
|
|
|
|
If i made a program which prints on the screen " Mike " infinite times without stop . how can i define a certain key if i pressed the program stop printing ?
======
I use ' getch() ' method but the program had to stop and check my entry and this isn't my question here.
modified 19-Sep-15 2:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to include some code inside the loop to recognise the keystroke or some other event to break out of the loop. If you add a getch then that would pause the loop until the keystroke is delivered. To get round this you can put that code in a separate thread and set a flag for the loop to check. You could also use _kbhit[^], although it has limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
if i'm not mistaken ctrl c(yes the copy shortcut) should break an infinite loop
|
|
|
|
|
How can i define the enter key to stop a working loop in my program ?
for advance ..
2-programs here which enter key defined both with different ways !
==============
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <ctype.h>
int main()
{
int x=1;
r:
printf("Allah %d\n", x);
x++;
while ( getch() != '\r')
{
goto r;
}
return 0;
}
and the other one ..
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <ctype.h>
int main()
{
int nm = 0, ch = 0, wr = 1,i=0;
char x;
while ((x=getchar()) != '\n')
{
if (isdigit(x))
{
nm++;
}
else if (isalpha(x))
{
ch++;
}
else if (x == ' ')
{
wr++;
}
i++;
}
printf(" \n");
printf("Numbers entered = %d , Characters entered = %d , Words entered = %d", nm, ch, wr);
printf(" \n");
system("pause");
return 0;
}
The first one enter was defined as '\r' while the second was '\n' ! which is the right way ?!
|
|
|
|
|
What happens when you try it?
|
|
|
|
|
Both programs debug well ! :/
|
|
|
|
|
I have the following code and when running it stays blocked on the join(). So, is it possible to call std::thread::join() in the destructor of a global variable?
void MyTimerFunction();
class MyGlobal
{
public:
std::atomic<bool> m_Flag;
std::thread m_GlobalThread;
MyGlobal() {
m_Flag = true;
m_GlobalThread = std::thread(MyTimerFunction);
}
~MyGlobal()
{
m_Flag = false;
if (m_GlobalThread.joinable())
m_GlobalThread.join();
std::cout << "MyGlobal destroyed" << std::endl;
}
};
MyGlobal Test;
void MyTimerFunction()
{
do
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds{10});
if (!Test.m_Flag)
break;
std::cout << "New tick" << std::endl;
} while (true);
std::cout << "Exit MyTimerFunction" << std::endl;
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::cout << "Main thread sleeping..." << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds{15});
std::cout << "Main thread awaking..." << std::endl;
std::cout << "Main thread returning..." << std::endl;
return 0;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: it stays blocked on the join()
That's the correct behaviour: a never-ending thread won't join.
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly, the destructor of the global variable sets an atomic to tell the thread to exit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, it seems to be the same thing. I checked under Linux with GCC and it works. On my point of view, Visual C++ runtime after exiting the main() destroys all the threads then all the global variables, instead of the opposite.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
