|
You may try with passing invalid image index (like -1) to SetItemImage or InsertItem. Your image-less item will be indented, however.
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I'm trying to avoid, I don't want to have indented item (I coined similar solution with invalid index but of course I got indented item), I'm affraid that this is impossible, but anyway thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there's always custom draw. Might be a lot of work for minimal gain though.
Shog9
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible .. but you have to have images though..Draw any images that you want..
then onInitDialog() add this line..
m_ImageList.Create(IDB_BITMAP_LIST,16,2,RGB(255,255,255));<br />
<br />
HTREEITEM hItem; <br />
m_TreeCtrl.SetItemImage(hItem,IMAGEFILE,IMAGEFILE);
hope it helps
|
|
|
|
|
Did you actually read the question?
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
I add the TVS_CHECKBOXES style,the checkboxes of the TreeCtrl looks nice.But when I create a CImageList and associated it with TreeCtrl,the checkboxes looks ugly(the mark looks small).
How to solve this problem?
Sincerely,Pole.
|
|
|
|
|
In a map with int both as key and data, what is the result of
int i = map[index]
when index is not in the map?
In the VC 6 STL impl. i equals to 0, is that what it should be or
is the result undefined?
If it is undefined, what use is the [] operator really?
/Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
|
|
|
|
|
From the VC6 STL docs:
The member function determines the iterator it as the return value of insert( value_type(key, T())).
So, if element with given key is not present, it'll be constructed using default c'tor. In the case of simple types like int, it means zeroing the bits.
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, good, then i can write some cleaner code.
Things like this return value of insert( value_type(key, T())). make my head hurt. 
/Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
|
|
|
|
|
_Magnus_ wrote:
Things like this return value of insert( value_type(key, T())). make my head hurt
This behavior is by design 
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
_Magnus_ wrote:
If it is undefined, what use is the [] operator really?
i have no idea. i always use the long form:
myMapIterator it = myMap.find(value);
if (it == myMap.end())
{
not in the map
}
no question about the meaning of the return code.
-c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
|
|
|
|
|
I have always done it like that to since i was unsure of the [] operator, but i rather use the [] operator since the code will look cleaner.
/Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that the index has now been added to the map i.e. the map size has increased by one. In the case you outline this may not be significant but it can be significant in other cases as the map may grow in an uncontrolled manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, i am aware of that, but as you said it does not really matter in this case.
/Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
|
|
|
|
|
It may "look" cleaner, but I would agree with Chris, using the long is MUCH clearer as too what is actually going on.
For example if you have
map<int,fooobject*> fooMap
what will
FooObject* foundFoo = fooMap[3];
actually be ?
I would expect that foundFoo would be NULL if there is no entry for the value 3, but is that what will actually happen ?
If you use the long form, it is a couple more lines of code, but you KNOW exactly what will happen - no guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
In this case i have a map with rightbits and i think that
if(map[i] & bit)
is cleaner than
iterator it = map.find(i)
if(it != map.end())
{
if((*it).second & bit)
}
But it might depend on what is in the map.
/Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
|
|
|
|
|
But operator[] adds an element to the map if it's not there - it's not the exact equivalent of longer version.
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote:
would expect that foundFoo would be NULL if there is no entry for the value 3, but is that what will actually happen ?
Yes, it will happen. Check with the following function template:
template <class T>
void test(T t = T())
{
T t2 = t;
}
...
test<char *>();
test<int>();
test<int>(5);
And put the breakpoint inside test. T() where T is simple type like pointer or int results in value initialized to zero.
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, excellent ! This is a standard for how implementers must implement a map? So we can count on this behaviour?
|
|
|
|
|
You can count on proper behavior of T() when T is simple type. This applies to this map situation.
To have even more fun, check the following declarations - they'll work:
int i = int();
typedef char *pchar;
pchar pc = pchar();
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
So simple types (int, float?, double, char etc) are all initialized to 0 ? Very cool but I had always been told that C/C++ did not initialize primitive types, although I suppose this case is a bit different.
Good to know anyways ! Thanks
Do you know if this works on GCC ? I take it that it is part of the C++ standard right ?
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote:
So simple types (int, float?, double, char etc) are all initialized to 0 ?
Not exactly. When you're declaring an int without initializer, you'll get random bits:
int x;
However, you can initialize variable with constant, or with this pseudo-constructor syntax:
int x = 5;
int y = int();
int z = int(3);
Jim Crafton wrote:
I take it that it is part of the C++ standard right ?
I guess it is. Otherwise standard containers would have hard time working with ints and doubles. In the STL sources there are many T t = T() constructs which have to work OK with simple types.
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
My company has a code library (dll) we release to customers. We'd like to only release the RELEASE version and not the DEBUG version to the customer. The problem is that one of the classes in the library automatically deletes some classes that can be allocated by the customer using the library with new.
When the customer links to our RELEASE builds within his DEBUG build it causes exceptions like "Invalid Address specified to RtlFreeHeap".
I assume that it's because the customer allocated an object with new in his DEBUG code and we free'd it with delete in our RELEASE code.
I know there has to be a way to handle this as I'm sure alot of companies sell RELEASE ONLY dlls to customers. How is this accomplished to allow the user to build DEBUG versions against your release DLLs?
Another note is that the DLL is a non-MFC dll which is linking to an MFC app usually.
Thanks for any help.
|
|
|
|
|
If your design requires freeing things allocated in customers code, you have to provide both debug and release build. And - your customers are forced to use DLL version of C runtime.
You may consider exposing some allocator object or allocating objects at the .dll side.
Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
You could get your users to build in release mode but use debugging info in their app so its almost the same as regular debugging.
Roger Allen
Sonork 100.10016
I think I need a new quote, I am on the prowl, so look out for a soft cute furry looking animal, which is really a Hippo in disguise. Its probably me.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
