|
You need to use the Inmagination....;P
If you have someting called VB, you can find a little help...
I'm sorry.
The best help is Ask to your Friends in CP...
Regards....
Computer analyst to programmer: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want."
Carlos Antollini.
Sonork ID 100.10529 cantollini
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a limit to the number of controls in a dialog box. It appears to be less than 255. At that point there is no warning, but the editor refuses to place another control on the window unless you first remove one.
I can't find any documentation about this limit, or whether there is a way to surpass it. Any ideas?
Thanks for your help
bob c
|
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, what are you doing that requires 255+ controls in one dialog?
Jon Sagara
What about ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) ?
|
|
|
|
|
It just growed like Topsy. We are testing out a complicated piece of hardware with many motors, lasers, an FPGA, etc, with many things happening at once which need to be reported.
I can break the dialog in half, of course. In fact, I'm starting to do that, but it would be nice not to have to move so much code. The present dialog box .cpp file is already about 5K lines.
bob c
|
|
|
|
|
bob coppock wrote:
The present dialog box .cpp file is already about 5K lines.
Ouch!
If *possible*, create child Dialog(s) and insert them into your
dialog. Of course, your child dialog won't have any title bar, ok or/and cancel button.
Good luck,
- Dirty hands lead to important discovery...
|
|
|
|
|
There's a limit on the # of controls you can have in a DIALOG section in your .rc file. Additional controls must be created at runtime.
--Mike--
"Everyone has figured out what 'service pack' really means, so they had to go and change the language. Perhaps this is what Bill was talking about in the 'security is top priority' letter."
-- Daniel Ferguson, 1/31/2002
My really out-of-date homepage
Sonork - 100.10414 AcidHelm
Big fan of Alyson Hannigan.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like you have a fundamental GUI design issue here.
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
ravib@ravib.com
http://www.ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
I was looking at the article by Robert Pittenger "Windows 2000 Style Wizards" and was trying to give it a try. The article is located at:
http://www.codeproject.com/dialog/wizard2000.asp
I wanted to bypass his initial dialog and force things to start with the Wizard right from the beginning. So, in the "Wiz.cpp" file, I just made the following modification:
CMasterDlg dlg; //used to be CWizDlg dlg;
m_pMainWnd = &dlg;
int nResponse = dlg.DoModal();
I also moved the code that was in the OnInitDialog of CWizDlg to the OnInitDialog of CMasterDlg.
however, I have a couple of problems.
One is that eventhough the pages do seem to be created, they do not show up and the second one, which probably stems from the first one and the fact that the pages are not somehow probably attached, is that I get errors when I try to cancel or click any of the keys.
Could you help me out on this one and tell me what I am doing wrong?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I'm going to be installing Visual C++ 6 on my computer today and I have a question. Up til now, I've been coding on LCC-Win32 that is C only and doesn't provide access to the MFC. Now that I have VC++ and can use the MFC, should I stick with Win32 or switch over to MFC. I know you have to code in C++ to use MFC while I am most comfortable with C. This one's a matter of personal preference I guess huh? I still would like to hear any recommendations from anyone. Thanks.
-AJ
I code, therefore I am
|
|
|
|
|
Get comfortable with C++, then learn MFC. Since you know the Win32 API already, picking up MFC should be a snap once you are familiar enough with C++.
Jon Sagara
What about ?
|
|
|
|
|
Using C++ and MFC will make it easier to produce bug-free code faster. You're much better using C++ and MFC. Imho, learning C++ will take more effort than learning MFC. You should understand OOP before using MFC.
/ravi
"There is always one more bug..."
ravib@ravib.com
http://www.ravib.com
|
|
|
|
|
I know both languages pretty well, so it's not a matter of learning C++. It looks, though, like the consensus is to use MFC because it's easier and more efficient. I'll try it out for a while and see what happens, if I don't like it I'll switch back to the API. Thanks for the opinions and advice.
-AJ
I code, therefore I am
|
|
|
|
|
redneckCoder wrote:
like the consensus is to use MFC because it's easier and more efficient.
compiled code is fatter, than straight SDK, but as far as time efficiency, BIG TIME SAVER!!!
One you know all the ins and outs of MFC window programming isn't the same. You'll find you'll get stomped by errors you may NOT understand at first CUZ MFC uses ASSERT quite frequently which when programming w/ SDK doesn't concern you really, cuz you know exactly whats going on all the time.
redneckCoder wrote:
if I don't like it I'll switch back to the API. Thanks for the opinions and advice.
You won't like it at first cuz you'll have a natural tendency to stick with what you know well SDK is easy to follow and concise. However like i said once you MFC...it's great time saver.
Splitter windows i found to be a pain in SDK, MFC...nothing at all...
Give MFC a real chance, you won't regret it
"An expert is someone who has made all the mistakes in his or her field" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
can anyone tell me how to avoid the stacking effect that occurs when I load toolbars at application startup? I want them to be aligned horizontally. Is this possible?
Also, when I programatically nuke a CControlBar when I close a document the background appears to remain. I've tried calling DestroyWindow() on the control bar before I delete it, but this does not work. What's the correct way to tidy things up?
Any help appreciated
thanks
matthew
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that sometime upon exiting my program, it errors out with a "memory could not be read". While debugging I see that my string buffers are not reseting themselves. How can I go about clearing my buffers out so that I do not get this error. Or am I looking in the wrong place. I still am curious as to how I go about resetting my buffers each time........
Please be patient with me as I am a cobol programmer (but I understand C++) and in cobol you must initialize your buffers so that left over data does not stay put.
Thanks again
Tom Wright
tawright915@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
every sting that you allocate (or in fact any data type) in this way....
CString *pString = new CString;
char *pChar = new char[n];
must be deallocated when you're finished with it:
delete pString;
delete pChar;
But, if you create vars like this:
CString myString="hello";
char myChar[]="hello";
then you dont delete them; it's done for you when they go out of scope.
Jon
Sorry to dissapoint you all with my lack of a witty or poignant signature.
|
|
|
|
|
A relatively major correction...
If you allocate with:
char *pChar = new char[n];
you must deallocate with:
delete [] pChar;
otherwise you end up with leaks.
J
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Hale wrote:
otherwise you end up with leaks.
No, you don't. delete[] differs from delete because it calls destructors for all the objects in an array. For "built-in" type, you have no destructors and it does not make a difference.
However, it is still a good programming practice to use delete[] for all arrays allocated with new[]
I vote pro drink ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
No, you don't. delete[] differs from delete because it calls destructors for all the objects in an array. For "built-in" type, you have no destructors and it does not make a difference.
IMHO it does make a difference. When allocating an array with new[], the compiler must reserve an extra bit to recall how many elements there are in the array. Typically, this extra info is allocated at the beginning of the block, and the remaining portion is what's returned to the user. When delete[] is called, the compiler subtracts some bytes to the pointer passed by the user to access the size information. So, if delete is called instead, the compiler will request the underlying memory system to free a pointer that is off its original position by some bytes! Needles to say, this can make the app crash.
(Other schemes for storing the array size information exist, that do no suffer from this inconvenience; but generally speaking, calling delete on an array allocated by new[] is undefined behavior.)
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
|
|
|
|
|
OK. Try this:
int main()
{
while (true)
{
int* a = new int[50000000];
a[2] = 2;
delete a;
}
}
I've found no memory leaks, and certanly no crashes.
However, as I already pointed out, delete[] is the way to go in all the cases we use new[].
I vote pro drink
|
|
|
|
|
WRONG!!!!
You MUST call delete [] when a buffer was allocated with new [].
Check 5.3.5.1, 5.3.5.2 (which specifically states that using delete on an array is undefined.), and 5.3.4.8.
Also 5.3.5.6 specifically states that the destructor will be called for non-array and array deletes. It is just the case with built-in types such as int, there are no destructors to be called.
It works out of luck. In earlier versions of VC, it would work in debug mode but not release.
Tim Smith
Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Urgh!!!
Did you read my post? 
Of course delete[] should be used after new[]. However, it WORKS (with VC 6.0 both debug and release) even without [], out of luck or not. It does not mean you should ever do this, but it works, and that's all I wanted to say.
I vote pro drink
|
|
|
|
|
You are right.
Check my message. It makes a HUGE difference since invoking 'delete' on an array is undefined. I have seen it crash in release builds many times.
Tim Smith
Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I was all ready to post wondering what the heck you were talking about, "calls destructors for all the objects in an array"... sounds like Java to me. But I double-checked and found you are indeed correct. 
However, according to my copy of C++PL, "The effect of deleting an array with the plain delete syntax is undefined, as is deleting an individual object with the delete[] syntax." So it sounds like Microsoft just decided to do it their own way. ![Jig | [Dance]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/jig.gif)
J
|
|
|
|
|
It works with MS out of luck. I have had many programs crash due to this error by the programmer, with VC when in release mode.
Tim Smith
Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
