|
Hi Chris,
Everything is working now with no javascript error.
|
|
|
|
|
This question "inspired" by : "Save and Restore WPF Window Size, Position, and/or State By Jeremy Hutchinson" [^]
Jeremy's article, which I just stumbled across, reminded me that I had never explored using "Settings" in Visual Studio WinForms, and manipulating them to save Form attributes, etc., for whatever reason.
I immediately recreated the gist of his code in a WinForms C# project, of course putting a few "spins" of my own on it.
Personally, I would want any article I contributed to CP to be an "original" work of some kind : at least not just a translation with a few variations thrown in.
But if I, for example, post a comment on Jeremy's article, with a link to WinForms source, it may not "reach" those searching for WinForms and 'Settings ?
I'd be happy to send my source to Jeremy, and invite him to incorporate it, but that seems to me to be an imposition on him, and maybe distracts him from his own work in WPF, and gets him into answering questions on someone else's code : seems all wrong.
So what's best : publish a "Tip" with full credit to Jeremy's article as the "original," and a link to WinForms source (DropBox) with the disclaimer that any questions about the WinForm version should be directed to the Tip thread, not directed to Jeremy's article. ?
best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
I did a couple of derivative articles once. It's okay to do (IMHO) as long as you credit the original author's work.
Since your article probably involves providing sample code, I would post it as an article instead of a Tip/Trick (which doesn't provide for source code downloads).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with John.
I see no problem in a article that deals with the same topic from a different angle, or in a different language, or with a different style; if you consider it worthwhile doing so, then go ahead. And if you borrow ideas, code, or text from another article, you obviously should acknowledge that.
Suggestion: if the new article were merely a language port, I would appreciate reading that in the introduction, so I don't have to read it all assuming I had read the original before.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
I also agree with other comments: post it as an article, giving proper attribution, and explaining what's different. I have built many articles "on the backs of others".
|
|
|
|
|
Could I see your implementation? One of my tasks is to sack an ini file based size saver (primarily due to limitations in the win32 api to read the file's error reporting) and would like to see how you did your wpf to winform conversion.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the others, in fact, I made something similar. I used the "Smart List" of Simon Huges in a project, but I needed some extra functionality. So I add the functions and published it.
Important is to say that you are basing your work in other's one, link it so that others can see the original one, giving his/her credits, and writing/explaining the new features because at the end... what you are introducing is something different, so it should not be a problem.
Regards.
--------
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi CP Friends,
This post is "somewhat inspired" by a thread on the Lounge started by CPallini "About Article Innovative Content" [^], but the question the thread raised for me goes, I think, a little beyond a "Lounge post" or a post to the "Windows Form" forum : this leads me to post it here, rather than "there."
A second factor leading to this question was a recent down-vote by Sacha Barber on a WPF post that I personally found "new," but Sacha felt was something that had been done before : [^].
Please note that I mention this with complete respect for Sacha's person, incredible creative work and contributions to CP (which I hope to understand before I am seventy-five), and his right to voice any opinion : it's just a "secondary factor" in my motivation to write this post. Also note : if you read all the current comments on that thread : Sacha ends up kind of apologizing for his first post, after a very "humble" reply from the article author.
Here's the gist :
1. imagine you have an idea for an article or series of articles on WinForms
2. you feel confident that the techniques you will illustrate are uncommon, but useful. but whether they have been previously touched on somewhere ... in some form ... in the vast labyrinth of CP is unknown.
3. you would specifically like to help "beginners" with this article or series of articles.
4. you don't want to waste anyone's time ... your own, the CP article review staff, etc.
I kind of suspect that maybe there is already so much WinForms related content on CP in good articles, tips, etc., that maybe that subject is kind of "well done."
So, at last, the question : how would you gauge whether another article on such a "mature" technology as WinForms is worth the time to write it up ?
Second : do you have any thoughts about a type of article (series ? tutorial ?) that would be useful; perhaps a good place to direct certain "newcomers" who post questions on the QA or WinForms forum and, by their post, indicate some need for a "review of fundamentals" ? And I guess that would, realistically, involve how to say "we don't do homework, thanks."
best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
I post articles when I've done something at work that required quite a bit of research, or that illustrates a technique in more of a real-world scenario. Your basic "hello world" programs simply aren't conducive (IMHO) to making a point or demonstrating WHERE you might use such a technique in your everyday coding requirements. As far as "how many times it's been done before", I suggest that you don't worry about it. MFC has been around since 1990 or so, and people here are STILL writing articles about it 20 years later.
I say put it out there, and see what shakes out.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Puhleeze, John, Wikipedia says MFC was introduced in 1992, so it's only 18 years old, not 20!
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether this blog[^] should be accepted, or is it a cheap way of advertising?
MVP 2010 - are they mad?
|
|
|
|
|
So I visted the first page I do everyday, and who do I see but Bob loitering the Lounge, however this presents a minor annoyance!
Bob[^]
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
|
|
|
|
|
phannon86 wrote: however this presents a minor annoyance!
But he's excited!
MVP 2010 - are they mad?
|
|
|
|
|
He's gone now, he did brighten up the place though
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
|
|
|
|
|
There appears to be a giant alien in the Lounge. This is not a bug report, but a suggestion that whoever came up with that idea (and Clippy, and yellow text for million+) be given a raise.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be nice if the date/time that a question or answer was posted was displayed along with the other info that's already there. I have no idea how old my stuff is by just looking at the list of questions that I've answered.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I'll add it to the TODO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooh. Nice. Thanks.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The following License preamble is an incorrect description of the license terms
# Source Code and Executable Files can be used in commercial applications;
# Source Code and Executable Files can be redistributed; and
# Source Code can be modified to create derivative works.
it should read "may" not "can". The license is giving permission (may) to do the things that are possible (can).
Given that this is a legal document, it is important that correct language is used.
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, that same problem exists in the MASM32 documentation:
The MASM32 project is legal mainstream software and cannot be used to create any form of illegal software whatsoever.
I doubt, however, that the difference between "can" and "may" would be taken into account in court.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
