|
Working with glue is fine if you do a "glue" job. But if you want to engineer a car you need finer tools.
I do a lot with MFC, but for finer control, lighter setups you better stick to ATL or WTL. Or the code isnt portable to other platforms. A time ago after I throw all MFC stuff out of my code to get running on MAC OS with GCC. Since than I try to separate "pure C" and MFC code in classes. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Hai,
I am developing a MDI based application. In that i have two set of splitter. For ex splitter1 has TestView1, TestView2 and splitter2 has TestView3, TestView4. In this situation i am loading the splitter1 as initial view for my application. Here i want to open the splitter2 by some menu selection in the same document. How can i get this result.
Expect your guidance to solve this issue.
Thanks in advance
by
bagavathikumar
Bagavathikumar
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using Visual C++ 2005 and have added a dialog to my project.
When i tried to add class for this dialog by right click and select "Add Class"
It pops up a script error: "Line: 815
Error: Object doesn't support this property or method".
Ratheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Friends,
Iam devloping a application where i want to write some set of contacts to outlook, where i tried off but unable to write it can any body help me out.
Procedre what i did.
1. created a session sucessfully
2. opned message store
3. opened contacts folder in outlook
4. stored that pointer into variable called m_pUser
5. with that pointer iam writing st of properties and saving it into the contacts folder.
Iam sure with the first three steps please go through 4 and 5 steps and help me out please.
Here i my core logic
::HrGetOneProp(MsgStore,PR_IPM_SUBTREE_ENTRYID,&propval);
MsgStore->OpenEntry(propval->Value.bin.cb,LPENTRYID(propval->Value.bin.lpb),0,MAPI_MODIFY,&ulObjType,(LPUNKNOWN*)&RootFolder);
hr=RootFolder->CreateFolder(FOLDER_GENERIC,(LPTSTR)"Contacts",NULL,0,OPEN_IF_EXISTS ,&ContactsFolder);
cout<<hr;
IMailUser *m_pUser = NULL;
hr=ContactsFolder->OpenEntry(propval->Value.bin.cb,LPENTRYID(propval->Value.bin.lpb),0,MAPI_BEST_ACCESS,&ulObjType,(LPUNKNOWN*)&m_pUser);
if(FAILED(hr))
{
cout<<"FAiled to Oen Contacts Folder";
}
SPropValue prop;
prop.ulPropTag=PR_DISPLAY_NAME;
prop.Value.lpszW=(LPTSTR)"ROCK";
m_pUser->SetProps(1,&prop,NULL);
prop.ulPropTag=PR_PRIMARY_TELEPHONE_NUMBER;
prop.Value.lpszW=(LPTSTR)"999999999999";
m_pUser->SetProps(1,&prop,NULL);
prop.ulPropTag=PR_BUSINESS_TELEPHONE_NUMBER;
prop.Value.lpszW=(LPTSTR)"1234567";
m_pUser->SetProps(1,&prop,NULL);
m_pUser->SaveChanges(true);
m_pUser->Release();
Can some body provide me any samples for referece so that i will be helpfull for me.
Thank in ADvance.
|
|
|
|
|
i missed the eror checking in the last steps of your pcde. It often helps more than believed 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I tried the following in VS6.0. Created a simple "Hello World" application then added the following:
int i;
int j;
i = j = 5;
printf("%d %d %d %d %d %d\n",++i,j++,i++,++j,++i,j++);
printf("i %d j %d\n",i,j);
Now i expected the output to be:
8 7 6 7 6 5
i 8 j 8
But instead it printed as:
7 6 6 6 6 5
i 8 j 8
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph_2 wrote: Now i expected the output to be:
8 7 6 7 6 5
You cannot expect that behaviour (and you should avoid using the increment operators that way).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: and you should avoid using the increment operators that way
Oh, this is just for trying...I don't use it any where as such
CPallini wrote: You cannot expect that behaviour
Why cannot i expect the output to be that? You think the output is wrong? Or different compilers will treat the statement differently??
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph_2 wrote: Or different compilers will treat the statement differently??
Yes.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
This actually sounds absurd to me. Its more like anti-C 
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph_2 wrote: Or different compilers will treat the statement differently??
Yes. It's all about sequence points.
"Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
Behavior in this case depends on in which order the operands are pushed on the stack( Right to left or Left to right) when printf is called.
Regards,
Sandip.
|
|
|
|
|
True. But the Standard Calling Convention for C is right-to-left.
The output 7 6 6 6 6 5 does not seem to be correct even if you were to pass the values left to right
|
|
|
|
|
I dont see anything wrong with the output?
++i,j++,i++,++j,++i,j++
1. j++ = 5
2. ++i = 6
3. ++j = 6
4. i++ = 6
5. j++ = 6
7. ++i = 7
You can read more about it here Calling Conventions Demystified[^]
Regards,
Sandip.
|
|
|
|
|
Your example is wrong!
I dont see anything wrong with the output?
++i,j++,i++,++j,++i,j++
1. j++ = 5 true -> j = 5 but after this statement j=6!
2. ++i = 6 true
3. ++j = 6 wrong -> j=7!
4. i++ = 6 true, but after this statement i=7!
5. j++ = 6 wrong -> j=7!
7. ++i = 7 wrong -> i = 8
So the final result is:
8 7 6 7 6 5
Thats also the right compiler result!
|
|
|
|
|
I did not see your post before posting mine....i agree with you....the only viable answer so far seems to be that such evaluations are "compiler-specific" but even then I am not able to derive a logic for the output 5 6 6 6 6 7 !!!
After all compilers are not like girl-friends  there has to be some logic or rules that determine the output.
|
|
|
|
|
Covean wrote: Your example is wrong!
I dont see anything wrong with the output?
++i,j++,i++,++j,++i,j++
1. j++ = 5 true -> j = 5 but after this statement j=6!
Please Try following sample
int i=5;
printf("%d %d %d %d %d %d",i++,i++,i++,i++,i++,i++);
According to you what should be the output?
11 10 9 8 7 6 5?
With VS 6.0 the output is
5 5 5 5 5 5
i++ is post increment and will be executed after execution of printf.
Please correct me if i am wrong?
Regards,
Sandip.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please look at the asm-code your compiler generates cause my compiler answers your question in the correct way.
|
|
|
|
|
I will surely read the article, i see a lot many interesting points there.
But before that, just a little curious,
1. j++ = 5 //OK. Printed value is 5, after that it becomes 6
2. ++i = 6 //OK. First i is incremented to 6 then printed out
3. ++j = 6 //Incorrect.j will first be incremented then printed out. But note that present value of j is 6 (from step 1). So j at this stage becomes 7.
4. i++ = 6 //OK. i now is 7 after printing
5. j++ = 6 //Incorrect. Should have been 7
6. ++i = 7 //Incorrect. Should have been 8
Just to make things a little simpler
i = j = 5;
printf("%d %d %d\n",i++,i++,i++);
printf("i %d\n",i);
Now the output is:
5 5 5
i 8
Even if the beahviour is compiler-specific how do you interpret this example (or even the first one)?
|
|
|
|
|
Please check my other reply for answer.
Regards,
Sandip.
|
|
|
|
|
I cant believe the output:
5 5 5
I tried your code and it says "7 6 5". What is right.
And the 8 7 6 7 6 5 from the prev. problem i also said that
the compiler output is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
All of this "I expected..." and "it should be..." stuff is pointless. Compiler vendors are free to evaluate such expressions as they wish just so long as all side effects of previous evaluations have been performed at each sequence point. In your printf example, the order in which the arguments are evaluated is not specified, but the sequence point means that all of their side effects are complete before printf() is entered.
"Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: All of this "I expected..." and "it should be..." stuff is pointless
What I mean to imply here is that based on what I have read/know the output should have been so and so.....So may be my understanding of this concept (of calling convention, sequence points) needs to be brushed up....It *could be* my ignorance on the matter, lets see, I'll read more, do more research and see what's missing
DavidCrow wrote: Compiler vendors are free to evaluate such expressions as they wish just so long as all side effects of previous evaluations have been performed at each sequence point.
Expressions....true, but the point here is about "passing variables" and C does specify how to do that: either R-to-L or L-to-R, we can make that selection.
DavidCrow wrote: In your printf example, the order in which the arguments are evaluated is not specified,
I did not specify that but I m using the default calling convention under which variables are passed R-to-L
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
