C / C++ / MFC

toxcct11-Apr-07 12:03

toxcct

11-Apr-07 12:03

sanket.patel wrote:
but dont you think this should not be allowed??

play VB if you're age to play with a plastic hammer.

if you code in C/C++, know that you can break much more than that.

don't code what you can regret later...

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

Christian Graus11-Apr-07 15:49

Christian Graus

11-Apr-07 15:49

VB and C# are languages written to cater to the lowest common denominator. C++ assumes a level of skill in the developer. #define is a hangover from C, which C++ is derived from. The designer of C++ would prefer it was not there, but it's still true that his design philosophy is to give the language powerful features and assume his users know how to use them.

Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

BadKarma11-Apr-07 20:34

BadKarma

11-Apr-07 20:34

Christian Graus wrote:
#define is a hangover from C, which C++ is derived from. The designer of C++ would prefer it was not there, but it's still true that his design philosophy is to give the language powerful features and assume his users know how to use them.

A hangover, maybe, but it is o so powerful. But with every powerful it should be used with care.

#define is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unexperienced. Big Grin | :-D

codito ergo sum

Christian Graus12-Apr-07 1:50

Christian Graus

12-Apr-07 1:50

BadKarma wrote:
hangover, maybe, but it is o so powerful.

I agree with Stroustrup. I try to avoid using it whever I can, I think it's a poor tool. But, it is powerful, and no doubt can be used effectively at times.

Rajesh R Subramanian11-Apr-07 22:43

Rajesh R Subramanian

11-Apr-07 22:43

You got sig-ed. 'nce again. Big Grin | :-D

VB and C# are languages written to cater to the lowest common denominator. C++ assumes a level of skill in the developer. - Christian Graus

toxcct11-Apr-07 12:00

toxcct

11-Apr-07 12:00

sanket.patel wrote:
#define private public

sanket.patel wrote:
I was able to access private member outside the class? why did this work?

of course you could !! you told it (with the #define) to replace each private keyword occurence by public... so that every private member is actually public.

why on earth where you trying to do with such horror ?! WTF | :WTF:

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

sanket.patel11-Apr-07 12:11

sanket.patel

11-Apr-07 12:11

Actually !!
I was asked to find the ways to access private members outside the class?
so one method is using friends....
and i thought of this as the other way...

Thanks,

sanket

toxcct11-Apr-07 12:17

toxcct

11-Apr-07 12:17

sanket.patel wrote:
I was asked to find the ways to access private members outside the class

and you chose the worst...

if members are private, it's to deliberately hide them from the outside.

look. if you have an object engine, do you know how it works internally ? certainly not. you only see the apis (accelerator, starter, etc...).

anyway, have you thought to members accessors (getters, setters) ?

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

sanket.patel11-Apr-07 12:25

sanket.patel

11-Apr-07 12:25

Thank you very much!
yeah I know about getters and setters and I know I choose the worst!
but the the question is about that only.. i.e. the unusual ways to access the private data.

Thanks,

sanket

Michael Dunn11-Apr-07 18:47

Michael Dunn

11-Apr-07 18:47

GIGO - if you pull stunts like that, don't be surprised when you get odd results.

--Mike--
Visual C++ MVP Cool | :cool:

LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ

Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?

Rajesh R Subramanian11-Apr-07 18:53

Rajesh R Subramanian

11-Apr-07 18:53

sanket.patel wrote:
#define private public

My opinion is that you will *EXCEL* in the "Coding Horros" forum. Well, what are you waiting for? Post some of your fantastic code there! Hmmm | :|

Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா

cp987611-Apr-07 20:11

cp9876

11-Apr-07 20:11

To make the most of your coding experience, you probably should try:

To save testing:

<br />
#define true false<br />

this always happens anyway:

<br />
#define this NULL<br />

to avoid accidental deletion

<br />
#define delete /##/<br />

avoid wasting loop iterations:

<br />
#define break continue<br />

just in case the others are boring:

<br />
#define try do<br />
#define catch while<br />

Peter

"Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

Mark Salsbery12-Apr-07 8:15

Upgraded from Visual C++ 6.0

12-Apr-07 8:15

EXCELLENT!

These fixed a bunch of my problems.

Thanks!

"Posting a VB.NET question in the C++ forum will end in tears." Chris Maunder

SimplCodr11-Apr-07 10:56

SimplCodr

11-Apr-07 10:56

I have just upgraded from 6.0 to Visual studio 2005. None of my code from programs written under C++ 6.0 will build. I get all sorts of errors "cannot convert perameters" etc... Is there a way to set my project so I can use my original code?

Re: Upgraded from Visual C++ 6.0

Michael Dunn11-Apr-07 11:30

Michael Dunn

11-Apr-07 11:30

You're getting those errors because the compilers in VC 7 and 8 are vastly improved over VC 6, and don't accept code that VC 6 did. You'll need to bite the bullet and fix up the code.

--Mike--
Visual C++ MVP Cool | :cool:

LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ

Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?

Re: Upgraded from Visual C++ 6.0

SimplCodr11-Apr-07 12:39

SimplCodr

11-Apr-07 12:39

Thanks for your response. I am able to open the original project with VC 8 and it builds fine but, uses the old visual styles. I would just like to be able to use the new styles without re-writting the whole program. I was hoping there were some depecndancies or something along those lines that would accomplish this. Seems kinda harsh to have re-write the whole thing

Thanks Again,
Terry

Re: Upgraded from Visual C++ 6.0

Michael Dunn11-Apr-07 13:43

Michael Dunn

11-Apr-07 13:43

Google for "common controls manifest" - there's info about the visual styles all over the place.

--Mike--
Visual C++ MVP Cool | :cool:

LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ

Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?

Changing text color in a RecordList

LCI11-Apr-07 10:52

LCI

11-Apr-07 10:52

Anyone know how to change the text color for a particular column in a record list?

I have:
COLORREF crBkColor = (255,0,0);
m_RecordList.SetTextColor(crBkColor);
m_RecordList.SetItemText( m_nSelItem, THE_COLUMN, TEXT("HELLO") );

But i only want to color that record in that specific column and not all records in all columns.

using STL Vector [modified]

act_x11-Apr-07 9:26

act_x

11-Apr-07 9:26

I hope i could get a view on this .
if i have an STL vector
vector<BYTE> vec[45] ;

Now BYTE * p = reinterpret_cast<BYTE*>&vec[0] ;

some operations
..
p++;

is it safe to assume that the pointer p can be used safely even though its pointing to the address of a vector ?

-- modified at 15:44 Wednesday 11th April, 2007

-- modified at 16:32 Wednesday 11th April, 2007

Engineering is the effort !

Mark Salsbery11-Apr-07 10:08

11-Apr-07 10:08

It can be if you intend on accesing bytes of the vector objects.
It doesn't point to the elements contained in the vectors.

*edited*

"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

led mike11-Apr-07 10:10

led mike

11-Apr-07 10:10

Mark Salsbery wrote:
It can be if you intend on accesing bytes of the vector object.

You win a free Fish Filet! Smile | :)

led mike

Mark Salsbery11-Apr-07 10:14

11-Apr-07 10:14

Thanks man! I'm HUNGRY!

Looking at it again... &vec is the address of the address of the first vector in the array?
WTF | :WTF:

Help

"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

act_x11-Apr-07 10:37

act_x

11-Apr-07 10:37

Sorry I intended to use
Now BYTE * p = reinterpret_cast<BYTE*>&vec[0] ;

This is meant to point to the first byte .
however is it safe to do operations such as

p++ and expect it to move to the next vector element( next byte in this case) .

I am asking this since someone gave me this as a solution of creating a block of memory dynamically and not worrying about calling delete ( as one would with doing new) .

Engineering is the effort !

Mark Salsbery11-Apr-07 10:45

11-Apr-07 10:45

act_x wrote:
Sorry I intended to use
Now BYTE * p = reinterpret_cast<byte*>&vec[0] ;

Cool. That syntax reads better to me Smile | :)

Just reinterpret_cast<BYTE*>(vec) "works" too.

act_x wrote:
however is it safe to do operations such as
p++ and expect it to move to the next vector element( next byte in this case) .

p points to the first byte of the first vector object, NOT to the elements of the first vector.
So, no.

Mark

"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

Mark Salsbery11-Apr-07 11:03