|
Actually, you can't use that code - that's not how you receive text from the clipboard. When you cope with pasting, you have to deal with the possibility that the user is posting in a large amount of text. This is just a friendly hint - try to think of all the ways the user can interact, not just the way that you think is easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Try checking that with char.IsLower function.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, what would you do with pasted text? Please try to be more complete with your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok,
Right to be more specific in textchanged event, check every letter of textbox (using .text property) if its uppercase with char.IsLower and then when you have full string handle code as you want.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to post this reply to the OP rather than to me. I already know how to do it, and he won't get notified via email that there's a new answer if it's not against his account.
|
|
|
|
|
You may also want to consider handling the TextChanged[^] event and using Regex to fix up the current text. Since the event fires when the control's Text property is changed both as a result of user interaction as well as programatically, you'll need a flag to ignore the event when it fires as a result of a fixup.
Edit: I just realized you're using WPF. In that case, see this[^] event.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
In short, I need help on how to add a new section such as:
<section name="Group3" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler" />
along with
<Group3>
keys go here
</Group3>
To a config file laid out like:
="1.0"="utf-8"
<configuration>
<configSections>
<sectionGroup name="Groups" >
<section name="Group1" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler" />
<section name="Group2" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler" />
</sectionGroup>
<sectionGroup name="userSettings" type="System.Configuration.UserSettingsGroup, System, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" >
</sectionGroup>
</configSections>
<Groups>
<Group1>
<add key="System 1" value="192.168.0.3" />
</Group1>
<Group2>
<add key="System 2" value="192.168.0.1" />
<add key="System 3" value="192.168.0.2" />
</Group2>
</Groups>
<userSettings>
<setting name="LastGroup" serializeAs="String">
<value>Group1</value>
</setting>
</userSettings>
</configuration>
I have been trying to do this for nearly a day, trying every method I could find to do so, but I was unsuccessful so I decided its time to ask for help. I even went as far as fully implementing this code[^] into my program and I still could not get it to work properly (it added a section, but it added the key and value to the <group3> block, not to an <add> block and I was unsure as to how to fix it.
Trying my best to understand all I can about the Mysteries of configuration[^]....but it seems to do a lot more than I need it to do (it goes into detail about adding custom sections, which I don't really need, keys and value is all I need in a section).
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried:
="1.0"="utf-8"
<configuration>
<configSections>
<sectionGroup name="Groups" >
<section name="Group1" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler" />
<section name="Group2" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler" />
<section name="Group3" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler" />
</sectionGroup>
<sectionGroup name="userSettings" type="System.Configuration.UserSettingsGroup, System, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" >
</sectionGroup>
</configSections>
<Groups>
<Group1>
<add key="System 1" value="192.168.0.3" />
</Group1>
<Group2>
<add key="System 2" value="192.168.0.1" />
<add key="System 3" value="192.168.0.2" />
</Group2>
<Group3>
<add key="key1" value="value1" />
<add key="key2" value="value2" />
</Group3>
</Groups>
<userSettings>
<setting name="LastGroup" serializeAs="String">
<value>Group1</value>
</setting>
</userSettings>
</configuration>
where the new entries are in bold?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry that I wasn't clear enough, I need to be able to add the new group and keys via the program itself.
I basically want to create a piece of software that can modify its own .config file based on use input....I would simply use the user settings to do so, but I want to make it an administrative-like software, that changes settings for all users.
So I need some sort of code that can do basically what you did above automatically.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd roll my own rather than try to use Microsoft's idea of a config file. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
If I knew a good way to write my own (guess it wouldn't be too hard, but I don't know C# as well as many people on this forum probably do) I would, but until then, I'm stuck with what is offered to me that I can learn some from.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, well then... here's an article I wrote that might be of some interest:
XmlNode[^]
I tend to write config files that are shared between users and applications -- like a list of the databases that are available on a system.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I haven't read through it yet, just glanced over it and it seems like a lot to learn and take in but I can definitely see the benefits. I should be able to basically rework my config to something along the lines of:
<GroupManager>
<Groups>
<Group GroupName="Group 1">
<System Name="System 1">192.168.0.1</System>
</Group>
<Group GroupName="Group 2">
<System Name="System 2">192.168.0.2</System>
</Group>
</Groups>
</GroupManager>
With what you show in that link, and then more easily be able to manage the XML rather than being restricted to Microsofts config functions, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, it's just XML, you can do pretty much what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
I have just come to C# after many years of C/C++ and am a bit surprised at the relatively slow speed of C# execution. The following is very simple test piece of code (completely useless) implemented in C# and C. Both tested on the same PC running Windows 7 Professional 64bit
The C# returns between 30 and 45 ms and the C/C++ a stable 4.2 ms.
Is there anything I can do with my C# code to speed it up?
C# Visual Studio 2010 Release Build Optimize On x86
Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();
int size = 10000000;
byte[] data = new byte[size];
unsafe
{
fixed (byte* ptr = data)
{
time.Restart();
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
ptr[i] = 128;
time.Stop();
}
}
var elapsed = 1000.0 * time.ElapsedTicks / Stopwatch.Frequency;
Console.WriteLine("unsafe time " + elapsed.ToString() +" ms");
C++ Visual Studio 2008 Release Build x86
int size = 10000000;
unsigned char* pData = new unsigned char[size];
QueryPerformanceCounter(&start);
for(int i=0;i<size;i++)
pData[i] = 128;
QueryPerformanceCounter(&finish);
time = float(finish.QuadPart - start.QuadPart);
time /= Frequency.QuadPart;
char msg[300];
sprintf(msg,"time %f\n",time*1000.0f);
OutputDebugString(msg);
delete pData;
I know I could make both faster with threading but question is really about the execution speed.
Finally after all the postings...
Thanks everyone for their comments suggestions C# is good for a large number of tasks and C/C++ is more appropriate for a different set of tasks.
PS I have not been active in the last week - some places in the world have no wifi or 3G ! http://s.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/smiley_smile.gif
modified 27-Sep-11 4:55am.
|
|
|
|
|
First of do not use unsafe
1) There is a performance impact, unless you're playing around with P/Invoke or COM interop, even then it's not worth it, in my opinion.
2) I've never seen an example of something that couldn't be done in safe code.
You can write examples where C# or even Java has a better execution time than it would in C++. I really don't wanna get into a C++ vs. Managed language war here. have a look at this discussion C++ performance vs. Java/C#
Also I suggest you forget about a performance issue untill you actually have a performance issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
The unsafe bits and pointers are no help in speeding up.
Is there a faster way to access/modify large blocks of data. The app currently working on requires a video stream data to be modified and if this is how fast C# is at this sort of processing this is not a problem I will thread this part of the app. I just wanted to make sure I had not missed anything.
|
|
|
|
|
You have some goofy stuff in there that shouldn't be needed. You're creating a pointer to your array (which requires the unsafe context), then you use your pointer as if it were the array:
byte[] data = new byte[size];
[...].unsafe{
fixed (byte* ptr = data) {
[...]
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
ptr[i] = 128;
[...]
}
}
All of that should be condensed down to this:
byte[] data = new byte[size];
[...].for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
data[i] = 128;
Give that a whirl and see how the speeds match up. I'm not sure what performance implications unsafe contexts create.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
All the unsafe bits and pointers makes no difference to the speed of execution. 
Any ideas how to make it faster?
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, don't know how to make it faster. I did try a few different loop approaches, but I get the impression they're being optimized down by the compiler into the same thing. They all seem to come out roughly the same speed (within a ms of each other). If you need something faster, you're going to be better off using C/C++.
And, just for kicks, I did try using raw pointer arithmetic in an unsafe context. It was still coming out slower then just looping. I found this odd...
|
|
|
|
|
You can use loop unwinding.
Alternatively, rather than indexing the pointer, you can just increment it by one (ptr++) each loop iteration and use a while loop that only checks if the pointer you are currently at matches the ending pointer.
You can also combine the two techniques. Would go something like this (some syntax and values may be wrong, but you get the idea):
byte* ptr = data;
byte* ptrEnd = data;
ptrEnd += (size - (size % 10));
while (ptr != ptrEnd)
{
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
}
ptrEnd += (size % 10);
while(ptr != ptrEnd)
{
*ptr = 128; ptr++;
}
I think there is also some more compact (and hard to understand, but maybe faster) syntax, but I forget it exactly. Something like this:
*(++ptr) = 128;
*(ptr++) = 128;
I think C++ C# also has an optimized array.copy function. You can fill in an array of, say, 100 values, then copy that to the "data" array a bunch of times. Or maybe you can copy the array to itself a bunch of times, each time doubling the number of elements you can copy. Would go something like this (I can't be bothered looking up the syntax right now):
Array.Copy(data, 0, length, data, length, length);
That would be 1 iteration in a loop... you'd obviously have to change the value of length each iteration. And you'd have to account for edge conditions. And it would only be useful if you were really filling the entire array with the same value.
Martin Fowler wrote: Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you want a big array filled with a single constant? if not, I urge you to investigate (and ask questions about) the actual things you want, not some mock-up. If you need a predictable content, Array.Copy would be a prime candidate (fill a smaller array first, then copy it as often as you like).
FWIW: No matter what language you use, bigger array elements (int or long) would get copied faster than smaller ones (byte) as the loop count, and the cost of the loop overhead, would decrease.
Finally, as a general comment on performance measurements, anyone proficient in language A and new to language B can easily "proof" that A is faster than B, no matter what A and B are. Half of your C# snippet can be scrapped without affecting the results (and possibly the performance either); however automatic optimizations (which exist both in the compiler and the JIT-compiler) work best when there isn't too much ballast to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin13 wrote: The C# returns between 30 and 45 ms and the C/C++ a stable 4.2 ms.
Is there anything I can do with my C# code to speed it up?
Words of wisdom, you can code in C.
You're comparing native code to an interpreted language. Of course it's slower, what'd you expect? It's not a big deal; one can create apps quicker, and the source is more accessible than pure C would be. If .NET seems to be slow on my machine, I know I'm doing something the wrong way (like not reusing objects).
If you ever encounter the need for something "faster", then simply call your C-routines from C#.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You're comparing native code to an interpreted language
C# isn't an interpreted language. It's compiled on the machine it is run on, making it possibly faster than pre-compiled code for a more generic architecture.
My guess is that the C++ compiler is using some special optimization (e.g., MMX instructions, or loop unwinding) that the C# compiler didn't happen to implement for this scenario.
Martin Fowler wrote: Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: It's compiled on the machine it is run on, making it possibly faster than pre-compiled code for a more generic architecture.
Compiles to bytecode AFAIK, and runs in a VM.
AspDotNetDev wrote: My guess is that the C++ compiler is using some special optimization (e.g., MMX instructions, or loop unwinding) that the C# compiler didn't happen to implement for this scenario.
No garbage-collector thread in the background, no framework at all.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
