What is the range of your integers? If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile. This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke

richardye wrote: However, I feel very strange about why WM_SIZE message doesn't do any effect. From MSDN: "The WM_SIZE message is sent to a window after its size has changed. " Did you mean to call the windows API function MoveWindow() (Or it's MFC wrapper equivalent)? CWnd* pWnd=AfxGetMainWnd(); if (pWnd) { CRect rect; pWnd->GetWindowRect(&rect); rect.right=rect.left+50; rect.bottom=rect.top+50; pWnd->MoveWindow(rect); }

Well, may be you misunderstand my meanings. After the DBA installed the oracle software, he set these two variables. I think this information(ORACLE_HOME,ORACLE_SID) might be saved in a profile by the oracle process. And when I want to run the SQL*PLUS, I first read these information from this file, because the login user has changed, and the environment variable might be changed too. But I didn't know whether this file exist or not and its path. Do you have any idea about it? Many thanks

My apologize. My meaning is to get it by command line,not by the ORACLE console. Do you have any way in resolving it?

richardye wrote: error LNK2019 unresolved symbol Which means nothing out of context. My guess is the following line is in error: template Counted::Counted(const Counted& count) "Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

toxcct wrote: to edit ! Sure! Hence I've to edit my post too. :doh: :) If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

richardye wrote: Since point heap points to the object 'local'... It would if you had done: Point *heap = &local; richardye wrote: ...there is no need to new the point 'local' And if you tried to, the compiler would complain because local is not a pointer. "Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

I think what the author meant was that the compiler does not generate a vtable entry that is never needed. If you declare a function as virtual in a base class, and that function is always called in the scope of a known class, the compiler might as well skip the vtable entry for that function. Or if you declare a virtual fuction in a class with no sub- or superclasses, there's no point in using a vtable at all. As for the inline declaration of a function, it only tells the compiler that you would prefer to have the code generated inline. If the function is virtual, you will still get a pointer in the vtable to that function (unless optimized away by the compiler). Might add that I'm not an expert on the inner logic of an actual compiler, so the case may be a bit more complicated than this :-) -- modified at 12:33 Thursday 25th October, 2007

This is the wrong forum, your queston has nothing to do with .NET. Try the Visual c++ forum. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

You mean that no matter how I should define the pure destructor function. But there is still something I cannot understand very well. If in your class you have a pure member function, you must show that any class derived from it should implement your pure function. Isn't it? But if you define a destructor function to be pure, you cannot implement it in your derived class and you have to add "{}" in your base class. I think it is meaningless. Why shall we use pure destructor function in a class? Many thanks. Tomorrow is another day!

I have thought that question for visual C++ might be something like MFC ,not pure C++ questions. Thank you for your suggestion. I will ask the same question in Visual C++ forum. Tommorow is another day

You are welcome :) #region signature my articles #endregion

Shrinking a transaction log is a science in itself, so here is a very useful script that I use(you may have to run the script more than once on the same transaction log for it to recover all the free space). Click here for the google document. You always pass failure on the way to success.