|
Below is the code snippet i used for HOOKING the WM_QUERYENDSESSION.But i never see the message box i am displaying.
1.Is there any problem with the below code
2.Also how can i discard the WM_QUERYENDSESSION at this moment so that it will not reach other applications.
DLL_EXPORT void SetHook(void)
{
if(!bHooked)
{
hhook = SetWindowsHookEx(WH_GETMESSAGE, (HOOKPROC)MsgProc, hInst, (DWORD)NULL);
bHooked = TRUE;
}
}
LRESULT CALLBACK MsgProc(int code, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
MSG* msg;
msg = (MSG*) lParam;
if( code >= 0 )
{
if( msg->message == WM_QUERYENDSESSION)
{
MessageBox( NULL , "Recieved WM_QUERYENDSESSION" , "test" ,
MB_OK|MB_APPLMODAL|MB_SETFOREGROUND|MB_TOPMOST
);
}
}
return CallNextHookEx(hhook, code, wParam, lParam) ;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any way to separate IWebBrowser2 and its document? IWebBrowser2 has an get_Document() function. I want something like put_Document. So I can "switch" documents of the browser. Like you do in a View (even in SDI).
Does anyone know how to do that and if it is possible at all?
Philip Patrick
Web-site: www.stpworks.com
"Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
Need Web-based database administrator? You already have it!
|
|
|
|
|
Why not create temporary html files with the different "documents" and just Navigate to them when needed?
Cheers!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Use document.write(...) method.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I even can store all HTML in IStream and load again (will be faster) or use document.write() as ADK says below. But in all 3 ways, the document will be disconnected from the actual site. Links won't be resolved properly. Of course I can change links from relative to full, then all will work correctly, but... Something tells me that this is not the right way 
Well, I don't think I can do what I wanted to do, but I found another solution, workaround Since I can't change Document of the browser... I can change the whole window  . Just like in with CView. The only disadvantage I see, that I will have additional Browser control (IWebBrowser2) for each window.... But I guess this is the price
Philip Patrick
Web-site: www.stpworks.com
"Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
Need Web-based database administrator? You already have it!
|
|
|
|
|
I've been searching the site for some version of a tabbed control that looks similar to the Excel tab control for the doc/view windows. I did run across an old MSJ article that looks OK, but not quite full featured. Before I go and pretty that one up, I was wondering if I'm missing one on this site? Any suggestions???
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I'm a newbe with a problem, any help would be appreciated.
I've got a combobox that lets you enter text as well as select an item from the list, what i want is to call a function when the user has typed in the text and pressed enter, but i cant find out if they've pressed enter. I've tried putting code in the OnEditchange section and looking for a carriage return in the entered string but it doesn't work. Any ideas?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, my first two guesses would be either the CBN_SELENDOK notification message, or subclassing the ComboBox and handling WM_KEYDOWN or capturing it inside of PreTranslateMessage(...).
Peace!
-=- James.
"Fat people are hard to kidnap."
(Try Check Favorites Sometime!)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there,
I'm trying to implement the following function using STL algorithms.
The function will just transform a bunch of data bytes to its hexadecimal representation in string format (readable in output screen).
prototype:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/*
* example
* Input char [] = {0x0 , 0x1 , 0x2 , 0x3 ,0x10 }
* Output String = "000102030A"
*/
const std::string dataToHexSring(const char *);
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what I got. It does not implement "dataToHexString" or even pretend to do similar, but gives you a guidelines about all the mistakes i'm doing, and the way I'm implementing it.
NOTE: It doesn´t compile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <vector>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>
const std::string func ( const char s ) {
return "FF";
}
int main ( void ) {
const int sz = 20;
char data [] = { 0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4 }; //original data
std::string tdata; //should end up with "0001020304";
std::vector <std::string> vs;
//std::copy(data.begin(),data.end(),std::back_inserter(vs));
std::transform(data,data + 5,std::back_inserter(vs),
std::ptr_fun(func));
//std::cout << "vecString t :" << vs << std::endl;
return 1;
}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any suggestion, improvment or word about the code is appreciated.
Looking forward for your replies.
Regards.
Carlos.
|
|
|
|
|
You code seems perfect. Is it not working? What errors are you getting?
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now that I've got a compiler handy could I try your program.
The problem stems from the inability of std::ptr_fun to handle const arguments. If you declare func as const std::string func ( char s ) your program will compile. Alternatively, you can omit the use of std::ptr_fun altogether and pass func directly, with its const args and all.
As for the lots of warnings appearing, in case you don't know they're innocuous and can be eliminated with #pragma warning(disable:4786)
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I would like to find an example of declaring a pointer to a member function. I would like to be able to call member functions of a derived class, by name, through a pointer to a base class. Something like this:
CBase
{
// A member function that takes no args . . .
typedef ??? MemberFunctionPointer
double Calculation(const std::string& idx)
{
if(m_map.end() == m_map.find(idx))
return; // No such function
MemberFunctionPointer func = m_map(idx);
double result = *function;
}
void RegisterFunction(const std::string& strName, MemberFunctionPoint pFunc)
{
m_map[strName] = pFunc;
}
}
class CTrig : public CBase
{
double pi {return 3.1415;}
CTrig()
{
CBase::RegisterFunction("pi", this->pi);
}
}
CBase* pBase = new CTrig;
double result = pBase->Calculation("pi");
So how about it? What should the typedef look like?
Thanks,
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
The syntax is tricky, and I don't have any ocmpiler handy, but it must be something like:
typedef virtual double (CBase::* MemberFunctionPointer)(); The virtual bit is necesarry to ensure that the proper derived class is handled in the call.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Joaquin, This is how I ended up doing it.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
you can't really pass a pointer to a non-static member function without providing a way to pass the "this" pointer for the object whos member function you're calling. and, if you're doing that, you might as well just use virtual functions, IMO.
-c
The ants are my friends. They're blowing in the wind.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure I can! You're right, though, I have to invoke the pointer to member with an object of some sort, in this case, the current object (the this pointer). But it's not pretty. The syntax is weird looking compared to invoking a regular function pointer.
I ended up doing this in my code:
RESULT r = ((*this).*pFunc)(dValue);
|
|
|
|
|
but if you have to go through the trouble of passing the object anyway, you can just use normal, standard, non-tricky C++ :
RESULT r = myObject.func(dValue);
-c
The ants are my friends. They're blowing in the wind.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I know which object, but I don't know which function. I just need to be able to call functions by name. Like this:
class CBase
{
protected:
typedef double (CBase::*MemberFn)();
std::map<std::string, memberfn=""> m_map;
void RegisterFunction(const std::string& strName, MemberFn);
public:
CBase();
virtual ~CBase();
double Function(const std::string& strName);
virtual double VFunc() {return 1.00;}
};
// Implementation of base
// Base.cpp: implementation of the CBase class.
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include "stdafx.h"
#include "Base.h"
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Construction/Destruction
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CBase::CBase()
{
double (CBase::*pFunc)() = NULL;
}
CBase::~CBase()
{
}
void CBase::RegisterFunction(const std::string& strName, MemberFn)
{
m_map[strName] = pFunc;
}
double CBase::Function(const std::string& strName)
{
double rv;
double (CBase::*pFunc)() = m_map[strName];
rv = ((*this).*pFunc)();
return rv;
}
// And a derived class
class CDerived : public CBase
{
public:
CDerived();
virtual ~CDerived();
double Pi() {return 3.1415;}
virtual double VFunc() {return 2.00;}
};
CDerived::CDerived()
{
double x = 0.00;
CBase::RegisterFunction("Pi", (double (CBase::*)(void))&CDerived::Pi);
CBase::RegisterFunction("VF", (double (CBase::*)(void))&CDerived::VFunc);
}
CDerived::~CDerived()
{
}
// And a test driver
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
CBase* pBase = new CDerived();
double rv = pBase->Function("Pi");
rv = pBase->Function("VF");
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
The idea is to reproduce the functionality of the IDispatch::Invoke method, but still be sort of portable. Kind of like a dispatch map, sort of. In other words, the base class can call functions of the derived class, by name. I could make a calculator or something like that, without having to hard code any function calls. Functions could be added without changing the interface seen by client code.
It seems like there's not a real good reason to want to do this, but there are instances where this sort of functionality is useful. Think of an object that implemented a whole bunch of functions, maybe a class called CMath, then you coul fairly easily write a command line program that understood the following:
sin(4.5) + cos(34.5) - atan(2) + 1.23
Well, you would have to write something to transpose this into RPN or something, so the precedence of operations was preserved correctly. This is not what I am needing the functionality for, but could be used for that sort of thing.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone's interested, I could send the project files that I used to test this.
|
|
|
|
|
ah. interesting. i've actually done something somewhat similar (using IDispatch as a base, actually).
-c
The ants are my friends. They're blowing in the wind.
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny. We originally implemented this system as a bunch of COM objects, so I was doing the same thing, using IDispatch to invoke methods by name. Now, we're taking the COM out, and have to reimplement all kinds of weird stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
I am of the opinion that you cannot just do that with normal member functions, and expect everything to work correctly, due to the absence of a suitable this pointer. You can use a static member function quite easily, however.
While it is possible to cheat and call a member function directly, there likely not be a valid this pointer when one is to be expected, so if the function tried to access any member variables, or call a virtual function, things would likely break.
However, it looks like you are trying to map a symbol to the return value of a function call (like the simple homework assignment of creating a calculator), so you can map the function name (the string) to a pointer-to-a-common-base-class from which you can call methods off of.
Peace!
-=- James.
"Fat people are hard to kidnap."
(Try Check Favorites Sometime!)
|
|
|
|
|
Your function must be static or global.
Use a static callback, it's more elegant!
typedef double (CALLBACK* MemberFunctionPointer)(double dVal);
and define your function like this:
double CALLBACK CYourClass::ASpecialFunction(double dVal)
{
return DoSomething( dVal );
}
By the way, why would you like to have pi function? Is this
a school project? 
"One good thing about getting older, you don't loose the ages you've been!"
|
|
|
|
|
With the pointer to member, you explicitly pass an object to the invokation of the function pointer call, so there is in fact a this pointer available. No cheating! In my example, the object happens to be the one invoking the function, but this isn't necessarily the case. Here's how I used it:
RESULT r = ((*this).*pFunc)(dValue);
|
|
|
|
|
No, it must be an actual non-static member function. The state of the object is important to the calculation.
The pi function was just to demonstrate the idea. In practice, the calculations are less trivial.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
