|
|
|
I have the same problem.. @_$h@nky_ .. if u have done it,plz share the solution with me.. reply asap.
|
|
|
|
|
ya its done with help of SandipG answerd link in this thread.
you can also chk and try this.
|
|
|
|
|
but the solution which you are referring to is for colouring the whole cell.. I wanted to color some substring of the text in the cell.. how could i do that from that solution.?
|
|
|
|
|
means if cell of 1 row and 1 column have string "Hello World"
you want to color whole string "Hello World" or only "Hello" or "World"
if u want color whole string "Hello World" it is possible.
but if you want color only "Hello" or "World" its not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
i want to color only Hello or world not the whole string. I think that can be feasible to do but i'm not sure how to do it.. I was thinking of using device contest to repaint the required string but i'm unable to attach the device context to the substring. If u can think of such way ..plz share your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
In EditBox Control i want to apply limit of charcters to be entered.
for example if limit is 50 characters.than:
I want if editbox have 50 charecters than after this it not enter any value.
Please tell me how can do this.
Thanks in advance.
IN A DAY, WHEN YOU DON'T COME ACROSS ANY PROBLEMS - YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A WRONG PATH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
IN A DAY, WHEN YOU DON'T COME ACROSS ANY PROBLEMS - YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A WRONG PATH
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
For the pattern, using reference variable as internal data member variables, I have some cercerns and want to listen to your advice whether it is real issues. I showed simple code to illustrate my idea.
My concerns are,
1. if the _buf is binded to a local variable (e.g. a local string variable), then if instance of Foo lives longer than the local variable, is it safe?
2. if the _buf is binded to a heap variable, and it is released some time but Foo does not the release operation, then using _buf is not safe?
class Foo
{
private:
string& _buf;
public:
Foo (string& input): _buf (input)
{
}
};
int main()
{
return 0;
}
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: 1. if the _buf is binded to a local variable (e.g. a local string variable), then if instance of Foo lives longer than the local variable, is it safe?
No, you'll get an access violation when trying to use the destroyed object.
George_George wrote: 2. if the _buf is binded to a heap variable, and it is released some time but Foo does not the release operation, then using _buf is not safe?
 "release"??!?
Don't you mean "deleted"?
If by "released" you mean that the object is destroyed, you'll have exactly the same problem as in #1; you'll get an access violation when you're trying to use the destroyed object. It doesn't matter whether the object is on the heap or the stack.
I suggest you use a reference counting smart pointer instead.
Just do a search here at CP, there are quite a few good examples.
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Roger,
I like your advice -- "I suggest you use a reference counting smart pointer instead.". Currently, I have another idea to fix the issue, which is do an instance copy when constructing the data member, not using a reference. Do you think it is a good idea?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: do an instance copy when constructing the data member, not using a reference. Do you think it is a good idea?
Well, it depends.
Consider what happens if the original value is updated....the copy will become obsolete.
A common problem is to have two instances of the same data; if they get out of sync you don't know which is the correct one. But this may not be a concern, it depends on what you're trying to do.
I would stick to the smart pointer solution.
That way I don't have to worry about the object being destroyed in the background and is safe to use until every object has released their references to it. Sometimes it's hard to know which object is the last to be destroyed and then clean up the memory, but by using a reference counting smart pointer the problem will be solved automagically.
With a smart pointer I would also have the data in one place and in case the data is updated, every "user" of it can read the new value from the same place.
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown
|
|
|
|
|
You made so great comments, Roger!
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: 1. if the _buf is binded to a local variable (e.g. a local string variable), then if instance of Foo lives longer than the local variable, is it safe?
2. if the _buf is binded to a heap variable, and it is released some time but Foo does not the release operation, then using _buf is not safe?
I don't see your concerns are related to reference in anyways.
Both can cause problem even if you do not use reference.
Regards,
Sandip.
|
|
|
|
|
SandipG  wrote: George_George wrote:
1. if the _buf is binded to a local variable (e.g. a local string variable), then if instance of Foo lives longer than the local variable, is it safe?
2. if the _buf is binded to a heap variable, and it is released some time but Foo does not the release operation, then using _buf is not safe?
I don't see your concerns are related to reference in anyways.
Both can cause problem even if you do not use reference.
How about making a local copy of the original object? 
The concerns are related to accessing the same instance using the address of the instance whereas the use of pointers is one way and references is another.
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Roger,
So, you agree with the two issues I pointed out?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Why Sandip?
SandipG wrote:
Reference member variable binded to local variable or binded to "deleted" variable is not an issue?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
No i mean is it is not a issue of a reference variable.
Consider instead of reference you have a pointer.
It will still be a dangling pointer right??
What i want to say is its a common problem. It does not arise because you use reference variable.
Don't you agree??
Yes with reference you feel it is issue because you cant reinitialize the reference.
And if if the object is going to be deleted in between then there is no use of using it as a reference. instead you can use pointer so you can reinitialize to NULL or some other valid object.
Regards,
Sandip.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with all of your comments, Sandip!
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
how to display text to edit boxes like printf in c while the program is running.
if i have some code in c like
{
printf("hello");
//do some computations for some time and then
printf("%d",result);
}
thanks & regards
|
|
|
|
|
you have to call SetWindowText() on your edit box instance.
but maybe you should start learning MFC/Win32 because that's a really very simple task.
|
|
|
|
|
you can use SetWindowText to set the text in the edit box. if you want all of the text to appear, as it does in the console window you can set the multiline property and the want return property to true.
Somethings seem HARD to do, until we know how to do them.
_AnShUmAn_
|
|
|
|
|
Use sprintf() (documentation here) to copy the formatted data into a string then use SetWindowText() (documentation here) to put this text into the edit control.
Regards,
--Perspx
"The Blue Screen of Death, also known as The Blue Screen of Doom, the "Blue Screen of Fun", "Phatul Exception: The WRECKening" and "Windows Vista", is a multi award-winning game first developed in 1995 by Microsoft" - Uncyclopedia
Introduction to Object-Oriented JavaScript
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
