|
Hi everyone,
I'm new to C++ programming and i'm still learning, i was just wondering if its possible to execute a dos comman in C++? like the command FINDSTR, why i want to use this? because no doubt about it its fast when it comes to searching for a particular text in a file, and since my project is about searching i thought this is a good idea. Please if you know how kindly help me.
Thanks/Regards
Sidney
Thanks/Regards
Sidney
|
|
|
|
|
Yup:
#include <process.h>
int main( )
{
system( "dir *.txt" );
return 0;
}
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beierhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much i will now try this.
Thanks/Regards
Sidney
|
|
|
|
|
when a system start or some one login into some os then os perform some inilizaion for a little amount of time depending upon the software and harware.
may i find out the amount of initilization time ?
i am requiring this because my service is running on the system and it has to perform some steps after initialization or after some on login's.
and i could not find the initialization time of the os yet because its different depening on software and hardware.
how to find out ?
any body could tell plz.
r00d0034@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you can, it depends on so much factors, software, hardware, ...
Your service should not be dependant on "time", no software should be dependant on "time" like that, except for real time software.
But there might be something in the OS that indicate that the system is "ready".
Max.
|
|
|
|
|
u have to check out the dependency stuff for service startup to make sure any other services urs depends on are initialised and running before u do
im working thru this myself
"traffic lights are for people who can't make their own decisions"
biz stuff about me
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know of good skin libraries? Free is always better? I was looking into skins, just for kicks. Thanks for the leads.
"Best file compression around: DEL *.* = 100% compression."
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Matthew R. Miller
mattrmiller@computersmarts.net
www.computersmarts.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
You Bet! Thanks a bunch. I searched google for this kind of stuff but got millions of hits, no matter which way I put it.... no offense to google it's just too good in these situations. Thanks again.
"Best file compression around: DEL *.* = 100% compression."
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Matthew R. Miller
mattrmiller@computersmarts.net
www.computersmarts.net
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain me what's the difference?
Sounds like a dump question.... I really don't know it. From previous Windows MFC code I am used to use BOOL, but why is that? C++ does provide a native type bool, shouldn't I use it?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
BOOL is Windows/MFC
bool is Standard C++
Max.
|
|
|
|
|
BOOL is 4 bytes
bool is 1 byte
BOOL is a typdef'ed int for TRUE/FALSE operations in the Windows API
bool is a type safe true/false value in C++
"VB the polished turd of software languages"
|
|
|
|
|
Does it make sense today to use BOOL rather then bool then? Every compiler has a built in conversion from bool to int (well as long as the API does not expect a pointer to a int).
|
|
|
|
|
BOOL should be avoided if you're using C++. You should use bool.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002
During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree. The only place I use BOOL anymore is with my windowing code. If it doesn't have anything to do with windowing, I use a bool.
Tim Smith
I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Smith wrote:
I totally agree. The only place I use BOOL anymore is with my windowing code. If it doesn't have anything to do with windowing, I use a bool.
Couldn't you also use bool in your windowing code?
The automatic casting doesn't cost anything remarkable I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but having to add all those != 0 to get rid of that warning is a pain in the butt. I tried using bool 100%, but I found it too annoying with windowing code.
Tim Smith
I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Smith wrote:
all those != 0 to get rid of that warning
could you explain what you mean?
this doesn't cause an warning: bool b=true; if(b) { /*do something*/ }
|
|
|
|
|
You can use !! instead of != 
bool b = !!SomeFuncReturningBOOL();
No warning, and easier to type than bool b = SomeFuncReturningBOOL() != 0;
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Molin wrote:
No warning, and easier to type than bool b = SomeFuncReturningBOOL() != 0;
what about bool b = SomeFuncReturningBOOL();
or if there would be a warning (i dont think so) bool b = (bool)SomeFuncReturningBOOL();
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
what about bool b = SomeFuncReturningBOOL();
It generates a warning.
Anonymous wrote:
bool b = (bool)SomeFuncReturningBOOL();
Should work, I guess. 
The !! is still shorter...
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Molin wrote:
It generates a warning.
oh okay!
thanks, for all feedback. I think I try to kick out BOOL from my code and test with a pure bool coding (if possible).
Have a nice weekend.........
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
