|
How are you using it? What are you doing exactly? Can you show the code? Please read the sticky post, "How to get an answer to your question" at the top of this board. Please.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
<code>
COleDateTime=m_ole_date1,m_ole_date2;
COleDateTimeSpan daydiff=(m_ole_date1-m_ole_date2);
int noofday=(int)daydiff.GetTotalDays();
CString m_no_ofday,nday;
noofday++;
nday.Format("%d",noofday);
m_no_ofday.SetString(nday);
SetDlgItemTextA(IDC_EDIT1,nday);
</code>
IN A DAY, WHEN YOU DON'T COME ACROSS ANY PROBLEMS - YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A WRONG PATH
|
|
|
|
|
If it doesn't work with your variable, verify with a hard coded string. That's because you might be screwing up the value in your variable somewhere.
Create a control variable (say c_edit) for the edit control and call c_edit.SetWindowText("Your text here");.
Or
Call SetDlgItemText(IDC_EDIT1, "Hello world");
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to say that but Its not working,
actully i m calling this dialog box in another class which is Form view type.
i want before closing of dialog box the value is show in EditBox.
IN A DAY, WHEN YOU DON'T COME ACROSS ANY PROBLEMS - YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A WRONG PATH
|
|
|
|
|
You're going wrong somewhere. Did you try debugging?
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I can be the reason you are not properly pumping the message, how you create the dialog, where is the code to set the text in the dialog resides.
|
|
|
|
|
ThatsMe. wrote: SetDlgItemTextA(IDC_EDIT1,nday);
What is the value of nDay at this point? What does SetDlgItemTextA() return?
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
nday gives the total calculated no of days.
and there is no value show in EditBox after using of SetDlgItemTextA();
Thanks & Regards
IN A DAY, WHEN YOU DON'T COME ACROSS ANY PROBLEMS - YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A WRONG PATH
|
|
|
|
|
Can you insert simple text to editbox?
|
|
|
|
|
ThatsMe. wrote: nday gives the total calculated no of days.
and there is no value show in EditBox after using of SetDlgItemTextA();
This answers neither of my questions.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can achieve this by sub classing your edit box. For this you have to use the API SetWindowLong where you will set a new window proc so that the entire message will be redirected to this new window proc. Here you can achieve the functionality by handling the appropriate message.
|
|
|
|
|
Can u please tell me this with example.
Thanks in advance.
IN A DAY, WHEN YOU DON'T COME ACROSS ANY PROBLEMS - YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A WRONG PATH
|
|
|
|
|
I am not getting what is your exact requirement any how I am giving you the skeleton to do sub clssing.Suppose handle of edit box is
hWndEdt
then
WNDPROC oldEditProcedure ;
WINAPI SubClassFunc(HWND hWnd,WORD Message,WORD wParam, LONG lParam);
oldEditProcedure = (WNDPROC) GetWindowLong(hWndEdt, GWL_WNDPROC);
SetWindowLong(hWndEdt, GWL_WNDPROC, (LONG)SubClassFunc);
do not forget to call in your destructor or at the appropriate place
SetWindowLong(hWndEdt, GWL_WNDPROC, (LONG)oldEditProcedure );
WINAPI SubClassFunc(HWND hWnd,
WORD Message,
WPARAM wParam,
LPARAM lParam)
{
if(Message == WM_PAINT)
{
SetWindowText(hWnd, "Hello SubClassFunc");
}
return CallWindowProc(oldEditProcedure, hWnd, Message, wParam, lParam);
}
|
|
|
|
|
All this is not required to solve the query that was asked. See the answer from Sarath.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
base class:
class B ()
{
public:
virtual ~B(){};
}
No difference between the two derived classes below?
I've tried, both can destruct.
class D : public B
{
public:
virtual ~D(){}
}
class D : public B
{
protected:
virtual ~D(){}
}
|
|
|
|
|
followait wrote: No difference between the two derived classes below?
Nope. There is a difference (find it here [^]).
followait wrote: I've tried, both can destruct.
How?
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
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the code.
Though
D::~D() is protected, it works just like public, any differece?
#include <iostream>
#include <assert.h>
using namespace std;
class B
{
public:
B(){v();}
virtual ~B() {
assert(false);
int j=0;
++j;
}
virtual void v(){cout<<"B"<<endl;}
private:
};
class D : public B
{
public:
D(){v();}
protected:
~D() {
assert(false);
int i=0;
++i;
};
virtual void v(){cout<<"D"<<endl;}
private:
};
int main()
{
B *p=new D;
delete p;
return 0;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Your code does not compile. Anyway, probably you intended something similar to
#include <iostream>
#include <assert.h>
using namespace std;
class B
{
public:
B(){v();}
virtual ~B() {
cout<<"~B"<<endl;
}
virtual void v(){cout<<"B"<<endl;}
private:
};
class D : public B
{
public:
D(){v();}
protected:
~D() {
cout<<"~D"<<endl;
};
virtual void v(){cout<<"D"<<endl;}
private:
};
int main()
{
B *p=new D;
delete p;
return 0;
}
it outputs (maybe surprisingly):
B
D
~D
B
It compiles due to runtime binding. I.e. compiler doesn't know that D destructor will be called.
As someone already pointed out, however, you cannot use the following code
D d;
while
B b;
is legal.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a loop hole in C++ or it is left like that for some specific reason?
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't a bug, it's feature. More likely a side effect, though.
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
|
|
|
|
|
you mean accessing a virtual protected derived class member using a base class pointer is a feature?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is a side effect of polymorphism.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Its the normal behaviour of virtual members, the access control is compile time restriction it depends on which function you call. see this, [Access to Virtual Functions^].
|
|
|
|
|
followait wrote: protected: virtual ~D(){}
Did you success in creating an object of the class D in another class or global function?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
