If you're using VS2008, you can export the Visual Studio IDE settings on the old machine to a file. Then import the settings on the new machine. These actually live in the CurrentSettings file found in your My Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Settings folder. The CurrentSettings file is an XML file so if you wanted to, you could use any decent text editor to locate the settings in the file. Hope this helps.

How about calling GetCheckedRadioButton like:

int radioCheck = GetCheckedRadioButton(ID_RADIO1,ID_RADIO3);

This will return the ID of the checked radio button or 0 if none are checked

Why not leave the buttons where they are and simply call ShowWindow(SW_HIDE) on each of the buttons? Such as: GetDlgItem(IDC_BUTTON1)->ShowWindow(SW_HIDE); GetDlgItem(IDC_BUTTON2)->ShowWindow(SW_HIDE); GetDlgItem(IDC_BUTTON3)->ShowWindow(SW_HIDE); Then somewhere else in your program if you want to show the buttons again: GetDlgItem(IDC_BUTTON1)->ShowWindow(SW_SHOW); GetDlgItem(IDC_BUTTON2)->ShowWindow(SW_SHOW); GetDlgItem(IDC_BUTTON3)->ShowWindow(SW_SHOW);

One thing you could try, is to exit Visual Studio. Then go to the folder where your project is and delete the *.NCB file. The file will automatically be rebuilt next time you open your project. This might help.

Yeah, and it sounds like she's saying: "Counting flies, counting flies....Cannot keep my place" At least that's what it sounds like to me. They play this -- "song" at the gym where I workout.

Some suggestions if you decide to build it all in VS2008..... The VS2008 CString class has a few quirks that were not there in VC6. The new MFC CString class is a lot more strict about index parameters going into functions like Mid, Left, Right, etc. What I ended up doing is derive my own subclass from CString and implement my own Left, Right, Mid, etc. handlers where my handlers would validate the index parameter(s) before calling the base class CString functions. I also did a little compiler gymnastics in redefining CString to CMyCString so as to not need to change every reference to CString in my project. As for the for scope problem, there is a compiler switch that overrides the for scope compliance rule. Use the /Zc:forScope- compiler switch to turn off the for scope checking. Out of curiosity, why are you statically linking MFC in a debug build?

You're welcome! Glad you got it working. :-D

The variable fff must be a string only containing a valid IP address. try this:

LPSTR lpIPAddress = _T("127.0.0.1");
int m1, m2, m3, m4;
sscanf(lpIPAddress,"%d.%d.%d.%d",&m1,&m2,&m3,&m4);
ipAdd.SetAddress(m1,m2,m3,m4);

//You should now see 127.0.0.1 in the IPAddress control

Make sure you're passing in just the IP address in the sscanf function.

You may be over complicating the conversion of the 4 number parts of the IP address. Try this instead:

int m1,m2,m3,m4;

sscanf(fff,"%d.%d.%d.%d",&m1,&m2,&m3,&m4);

ipAdd.SetAddress(m1,m2,m3,m4);

Of course, you'll need to validate the IP address is in the proper format.

But I thought over there, you guys have "Sponge Robert Rhombus Knickers"! :laugh:

You should not have to do anything special in the OnPaint. Give this a try:

if(!toolBar.Create(
	NULL,
	this,
	IDR\_TOOLBAR,
	WS\_CHILD | WS\_VISIBLE | CBRS\_TOP |  CBRS\_FLYBY | CBRS\_SIZE\_DYNAMIC
	| CBRS\_TOOLTIPS
	| CBRS\_HIDE\_INPLACE | CBRS\_GRIPPER
	) ||
	!toolBar.LoadToolBar( IDR\_TOOLBAR )
	)
{
	TRACE0("Failed to create toolbar\\n");
	return -1;      // fail to create
}

toolBar.SetButtonStyle( 0, TBBS_CHECKBOX );
toolBar.SetButtonStyle( 1, TBBS_CHECKBOX );
toolBar.SetButtonStyle( 2, TBBS_CHECKBOX );
toolBar.SetButtonStyle( 3, TBBS_CHECKBOX );
toolBar.SetButtonStyle( 4, TBBS_CHECKBOX );
toolBar.SetButtonStyle( 5, TBBS_CHECKBOX );

const UINT idArray[] = {
IDM_LINES, IDM_RECTANGLES, IDM_ELLIPSES,
IDM_ENLARGE, IDM_ORG, IDM_RESET
};

BOOL status3 = toolBar.SetButtons( idArray, 6 );
toolBar.UpdateWindow();
BOOL status4 = toolBar.ShowWindow( SW_SHOW );
toolBar.Invalidate();
this->Invalidate();

Where is the variable toolBar declared? Just an off the cuff guess, did you declare toolBar locally in the OnCreate method? If so, it would get destroyed when OnCreate returns.

They make USB to parallel adapters. I suggest this as you say you have previously done your robotic control via a parallel port. There's a chance that your existing code that works through a real parallel port might work with one of these.

Just an optional requirement..... :laugh:

plz sendz codez...... Here have a :beer: and lighten up :)....

If you find a way to do it, try running your post through the application......

Your question has little to do with linkers. Make files follow a fairly simple syntax: build_target1: dependency1.o dependency2.o build_target2 ....etc. commands to build the build target build_target2: command(s) needed to build this build target. So, looking at your make file: # compile the samples gdc_samp1: gdc.o gdchart.o price_conv.o gdc_samp1.o $(GD_LIB)/libgd.a $(CC) -o gdc_samp1 gdc.o gdchart.o price_conv.o gdc_samp1.o -L$(GD_LIB) -lgd -lm The build target "gdc_samp1:" is what defines all that is needed to make the gdc_samp1. So, make converts the line: $(CC) -o gdc_samp1 gdc.o gdchart.o price_conv.o gdc_samp1.o -L$(GD_LIB) -lgd -lm to: gcc -o gdc_samp1 gdc.o gdchart.o price_conv.o gdc_samp1.o -L$(GD_LIB) -lgd -lm For more info on make files: Clickety[^] Hope this helps

In the VS IDE, Tools...Options...Projects and Solutions...Build and Run... On the Build and Run page, you can specify how many parallel project builds. For C++ projects, this just causes VS to launch multiple instances of cl.exe to build multiple projects in your solution. Hope this helps

peterchen wrote:

Back in my days5) we had things called verbal descriptions, that might go like this: "to achieve X, implement interface IY, and pass it to the LetMeIn() method on the Z instance that is passed to the SurpriseInit() method of your object." Now that's probably all ubintelligible to you copypastedontwannaunderstanders, but that's your fault, not mine, but I have to suffer.

plz s3nd c0dz -- URGENT

The Daily Double :beer::beer: Good answer -- er question (or something like that)