After fixing your posted fake code to be real code it compiles fine for me

yellowine wrote: double Length0(double x1, double y1, double z1, double x2, double y2, double z2) { double dx = x2 - x1; double dy = y2 - y1; double dz = z2 - z1; return (dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz); } You can see no specific improvements with that change there. but on the other hand There would be some improvements with the first case (length0), If the calculations happen inside a loop. just a rough example: double y1, double z1, double x2, double y2, double z2) { double dx = x2 - x1; double dy = y2 - y1; double dz = z2 - z1; double result =0.0; for(int i=xx;i<yx;i++)> { result += (dx* i + dy * i + dz * i); } return result; } There it would make sense to keep them out of the loop and see some performance improvements. He never answers anyone who replies to him. I've taken to calling him a retard, which is not fair to retards everywhere.-Christian Graus

The return value doesn't matter - it's where you use GetBoundingBox: CMyObject(const CMyObject<t> &Obj) // copy constructor { // do some data copy here .... \_Box = Obj.GetBountingBox(); } You are saying that Obj is const. Given that, you can only perform const methods on Obj. So, to use GetBoundingBox there, it has to be a const method. A const method is making a promise that it doesn't alter the object on which it's called. _Box = Obj._Box is implicitly 'const', as you are reading a member variable (it's an rvalue). The error message gcc gives for your code is a bit better than VC++'s: a.cpp: In copy constructor ‘CMyObject<T>::CMyObject(const CMyObject<T>&) [with T = int]’: a.cpp:34: instantiated from here a.cpp:20: error: passing ‘const CMyObject<int>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘_BoundingBox<T> CMyObject<T>::GetBoundingBox() [with T = int]’ discards qualifiers Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

Thats is because if you pass an argument as pointer then only changes in the value of the argument will be preserved. If you want to change the pointer itself then you have to use double poitner. int *n1 = 0; void Fun(int **v1, int *v2) { *v1 = v2; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int *n2 = new int; *n2 = 3; Fun(&n1, n2); // n1 and n2 both point to same memory location here. delete n2; return 0; } -Saurabh

MFC wants that you assign a string to AFX_IDS_OPENFILE X| Greetings from Germany

It works. Thanks a lot.

Hi, you can you const int nLength = (int)pArray.GetSize() to remove all the 4 level warnings in your application - i'm dealing with 32 bit applications.

Got it. Thanks.

try this, CString hello("CString"); char* hello1=new char[hello.GetLength()+1]; hello1 = hello.GetBuffer(hello.GetLength()); Have A Nice Day! Murali.M

I have tried that. The real issue is that sometimes the F1 help works, sometimes not. Any idea?

If you are interested, you can simply call SetWindowPos or MoveWindow to change the size of the window as well, and windows will take care of the message sending for you. Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!

See this article. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com

2.5 is enough for my Win98 :-) I also have a partition for Win2k , and it's even smaller. (I use Win2k for ASP programming) I'm planning to install WinXP too :-) So I'll have 4 operation systems - 3 Windowses and Linux. :-) - Dan "Intel inside - Idiot outside"

Or you can send the message to each view ... // while(....) { pView->SendMessage( ); } and each view will process the message in his own way.

I have tried other method to create a view using something like: CView *pView = pRuntimeClass->CreateObject(); pView->Create(...); It got the same assert. However if I add (Overide) a message handler of OnMouseActive(..)of CMyView and just call CWnd::OnMouseActivate(..) within that handler, the ASSERT goes away. Odd!

I am very convinced by your explanation here. Thank you so much! Have a nice weekend.

Do you mean that every CView type class dynamically created should be deleted by itself within its class? In my original example, the pWnd has a valid memory address, but the members of pWnd are not "valid", e.g., pWnd->hWnd = 0xddddddddd. I don't know how comes that.

Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Freeware??? I wish... something like $300 per license. farewell goodnight last one out turn out the lights Smashing Pumpkins, Tales of a Scorched Earth