Could you please translate this for all the C++ programmers here ;P

Alcohol, the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems - Homer J. Simpson X| X| X|

Okay, thanks for the informations. Therefore, I'm going to wait a little bit more until they do the die-shrink.

Alcohol, the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems - Homer J. Simpson X| X| X|

Do you have some more informations about it? Does this Elite Version already include the Die-Shrink? And has it already a HD-DVD Drive or still a normal DVD-Drive?

Alcohol, the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems - Homer J. Simpson X| X| X|

Corinna John wrote:

That would have been a good comment.

Wow, you are really a geek ;P I bet all my non-existing money that the

"Hey, Knopper even looks like a penguin!"

comment would have been much better :)

Happy Birthday :) The world is so small, I turned 24 today, too...

Hi Marc, thank you for the information. Well, I used Reflector.Net and didn't see these "hyrid" classes. But how is it possible that e.g. the managed class C could inherit from native class B? And if I call call a native function in class C, does it use internally PInvoke to call it? So, is it basically faster to call managed functions/methods from class C than calling native functions?

Hi, I have a question regarding C++/CLI and classes. I can declare a managed class like this: #pragma managed public ref class A { public: void DoSomething(); }; The compiler will translate this one into MSIL or CIL. And I can use this class in any .Net language by adding my compiled dll/exe as a reference e.g. in a C# project. And here's the unmanaged pendant: #pragma unmanaged class B { public: void DoSomething(); }; This is code gets translated into native code. But what happens, if I have the following: #pragma managed class C { public: void DoSomething(); }; What does the compiler exactly with this code? I'm confused :~

Ah, now I understand, thx :) Shame on me :~

Well, this code is 100% correct imo (under some conditions). If Variable is an Integer, the Visual Studio C++ compiler shows a warning (C4800, type' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)) when you use the following code: int i = 1; bool c = i; So, I guess the guy only wanted to get rid of the compiler warning :)

Hi Mike, you haven't said what you are exactly doing with Visual Studio (MFC, C#, ASP, pure C++ or whatever), so perhaps one of the free Express Editions might fit your needs, so that you don't have to spend a cent for the big VS brother: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/windows/. Greetings

Thank you for your help and the example. Great :)

Hi, I'm currently writing a small server application for data transfer. Two commands are for direct file transfer (relative path, e.g. test/data.dat) and I want to limit the filenames to be in the directory and subdirectories of the server application. Let's say the server lies in c:\server\server.exe, now I want to be able to e.g. put a file into c:\server\new folder\test.dat, but not outside the server directoy, e.g. c:\test.dat (e.g. with a ../test.dat or new folder/../../test.dat). Is there a good way to parse bad filenames/path? Greetings

Mila025 wrote:

Hi, hm do you mean something like that: CLedButton * led = new CLedButton; led->Create( "an strange text", WS_CHILD|WS_VISIBLE|BS_AUTOCHECKBOX, CRect( 2, 2, 120, 20 ), this, iCtrlId ); led->SetIcons(IDI_GRAY_LED_ICON, IDI_GREEN_LED_ICON); ... ... ... delete led;

Yes, thanks. I found it out on my own at the same time and wanted to post it here, but you were faster :) The BS_AUTOCHECKBOX flag needs to be set, otherwise the class asserts. Damn, I have the feeling that asserts are really bad implemented. I'm using my non-mfc application an custom assert, which brings me directly to the line, where the assert happend and not somewhere deep in the MFC, where I have to search the huge call stack for the place, where the real assert happend. Anyway, thanks for you help :)

Thanks for you help :) Now to the next problem :~ I'm using the following controler: http://www.codeproject.com/buttonctrl/LedButton.asp[^] It's an LED button, which interhits from CButton. I can actually create a CButton dynamically, but it doesn't work with this CLedButton class. If anyone has five free minutes, it would you could say why it doesn't work this this control :confused:

Hi, well, it's for sure a simple problem for an advanced MFC user, but I don't know how to solve it X| Here's what i want to do: I want to create a MFC controls dynamically to my MFC dialog without the use of the resource editor. E.g. a simple static text at the coordinates 0,0 with text on it? The reason I'm asking is that I have to add 120 leds/labels to a dialog and I don't want to make it by hand, because if something changes, I have to redo everything, Or if I want to add tabs later. Thanks for your help.

TClarke wrote:

I think it's an interesting idea. Sort of Document/View architecture on steroids.

:laugh:

TClarke wrote:

PS. what sort of IPC are you considering?

Well, I don't want to use some sort of IPC, only simple function calls. As I posted in the other post, it's some sort of calling montior, so I thought something like this: When a new connection comes in: (in my base code) if(newconnection) (ConnectEvent)(ConnectionID, CallerNumber, ...) And the MFC should then enable an (software) led or something.

No, I don't need any MFC classes internal. But I want to have visual output of the data. Is some sort of call monitor (with data transfer). The base code is already handling everything, but I want to see, when a new connections comes in (using some sort of leds), when a connection cancels and some sort of history monitor.

Hi, I am currently building a C++ application and I want to add some gui stuff to it. Basically, it should only show the status of the basecode (I'm currently doing everything as console output), so there won't be any/much interaction with the gui and the base application. Now I want to abstract it, that I won't have to put any MFC/Gui code into the base code. So, I thought about some sort of event callback functions. Somewhere in the MFC init phase: myapp = New MyApplication; myapp->SetEvent1Callback(&MyMfcApp::Event1Callback); myapp->SetEvent2Callback(&MyMfcApp::Event2Callback); void MyMfcApp::Event1CallBack(long para) { BlinkBlink(para) } Somewhere in my Code: if(event1callback) (*eventcallback1)(para1, para2, ...); This way, I will still be able to develop the C++ basecode without mixing it with any MFC Code. You may ask why? The reason is that I want to have my C++ code gui free and change the *bling-bling* gui system later. Is it a good idea? I'm open for every comment. Greetings