Here is my source code for locking my computer screen (Generally we do by pressing win+L)But Here in the below code what i am trying to do is , when user run the exe created by this application 1st the screen will be invisible (which is not happening in case of win+L) then next time when the user interact with the system it will show the user that the screen is locked .
int APIENTRY WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance,
// Turn off monitor
Sleep(500); // Eliminate user's interaction for 500 ms
ret =SendMessage(HWND_BROADCAST, WM_SYSCOMMAND, SC_MONITORPOWER, (LPARAM) 2);
@DavidCrow : You are genius man .. Thankxx a lot .. As you said its just because of my Graphics driver . Earlier my graphics driver was not compatible with the hardware .. Now i have installed the new driver .. and the issue is resolved.. Thankxx again ..
But I want to get the text when it's pasted.
I checked WM_PASTE but it is send to the control that has the focus not it's parent CWnd.
My dialog has some control of buttons, edit boxes, list control, ...
so it is posible that any of these controls has the focus (when something is paste)
I have a CDateTimeCtrl on my dialog. Through this I can choose any date in given range from drop down. But currently user is also allowed to press numeric keys to set the date. Is there any way to stop user from typing in it. I want, he should only be able to select the date from drop-down and I don't want to disable the control.
I have checked the "AllowEdit" property but that is different thing. Currently it is set to false.
Thanks Jochen, you are right. That way it will work. But for such a small requirement, I don't want to do big changes and also I don't want to go for pretranslate message. Is there any way to handle WM_CHAR/OnChar events for the date control on the same dialog class?
You are using MFC, so you don't need to handle PreTranslateMessage(). Just use the wizard to derive a class, use the message properties to add the WM_CHAR handler, and comment the line calling CDateTimeCtrl::OnChar(). Done with a few mouse clicks. All you need to type in using the keyboard is the name of the drived class, the comment chars, and replacing the CDateTimeCtrl by your class name in your code.
The edit control of CDateTimeCtrl is not accessible. So it can't be done in the dialog. Even when it would be possible: It is always better to perform such things in the control rather than in the dialog. So it must be done only once and not within every dialog that uses such a control.
I have a console application, that create a dialog box to show a progress bar. This has worked fine for years (it started as a Visual Studio 6 project, then I migrated it to Studio 2005) Now, I have migrated it to Studio 2010. It still works fine under Windows 7, but under XP, the dialog box returns -1, with a GetLastError() of 0. When I look at the messages sent to the dialog box, then I see WM_SETFONT, followed by WM_DESTROY and WM_NCDESTROY. I call it as
DialogBox (hInstance, MAKEINTRESOURCE (IDD_MAPPER), HWND_DESKTOP, DialogProc), where DialogProc is defined as
Also, please check if you still using the manifest loaded via RT_MANIFEST resource. You need to delete this from resource and use the project settings. VS2010 has a habit of assigning RT_MANIFEST to 2, making the program unusable under XP.
And of cause you need to check this linker option: MinimumRequiredVersion. It should be 5.00.
There is no RT_MANIFEST mentioned in the resource
Also, the MinimumRequiredVersion is left blank, so I don't expect any difficulties there!
In any case: the program itself runs and it does everything up untill the point that I start the dialog box. (and everything after that dialogbox crashes) There are a number of log statements before and after and I see everyone of them. Only everything that occurs from within the dialogbox doe not appear in XP.
I have created a COM dll . I'm calling another dll(C#.net dll\assembly)by adding refrence of this .net dll(from project properties) .And i able to access properly.
Now i want to make this .net dll usage should be independent of path. I mean -
I'll not add any reference or give path name in my COM dll Hence my COM dll don't know where this .net dll is located in the system. While COM Dll try to call this .net dll it'll search in whole system & load it.
Kindly please advice the C++ code for this
OR LoadLibrary() is only the method through that only we can load library dynamically(independent of path)
We don't want to give specific location of dependent Dll in COM code . Because this dependent DLL is not developed by us. This dll usually obtained after installation of a software.
we legally tied-off with this software company & code cann't be provided them(as usual company policy)
Hence if it is possible then we want to load dynamically.
I'm guessing if we do search the dependent dll in whole system while invoking ,there may be the performance issue may happen. But still the requirement is like this.
Hope you understood our requirement.
Hence if any best ways kindly please suggest.
Normal installations will create a registry entry which you can look for. You find the entry and grab the install directory. Then...
During your install.
1. Present a dialog to the user with the default product path (or the found one above.)
2. The user can modify the path.
3. When the user says ok you then verify that the correct dll is at the path specified.
4. If the dll (and correct version) is not found then put out an error message and go back to step 1.
I've been using the auto keyword, lambdas and move constructors so far and all seems very cool. If the only thing they added was the auto keyword it would still be worth upgrading. This is just awesome...
auto it = someCollection.begin();
...but of course the downside is we now need cbegin() as well
This might help in lot of cases, but I really wonder if C++ 11 can reduce the pain of memory mangement. In my experience, auto variables are hardly I needed for my development. but really got tired of several gotchas and memory corruption and management with C++
Don't get me started. Today's object spaghetti makes the old C spaghetti pale in comparison.
C++11 advocate: Look, I made the code more awesome.
Me: It's slower, more complicated than it needs to be and much harder to find bugs. Why not just use C#?
C++11 advocate: But, it's more awesome!
(I actually heard someone today advocate that all pointers must be wrapped in shared_ptr, no matter what. I'm even working on some code that did that for absolutely no apparent reason--the delete happens within three lines and there is a catch around the call to which the pointer is passed AND the pointer is not actually shared. Yet, they not only used a shared_ptr, but spent time creating a factory to instantiate the only instantiation ever of the object to which the pointer is passed.)
Just easier. At first I was quite sceptical, anything that looks like it might break c++'s type safety is bound to raise suspicion but after reading and playing with it a bit it's actually harder to shoot yourself in the foot than I'd first thought.
The rvalue references are a much bigger change but we've seen some good performance benifits from that.