|
What about:
COleDateTime dt(*(vargValue.pdate));
?
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
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Great ! Now does function well.
Thanks a lot !!!
I don't know how to test last case (VT_DATE | VT_BYREF).
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to VT_R8, except that you know the range of values. It's fairly easy to convert back and forth from Excel 2003's date time serial noting the leap year error in 1900. If using Excel 2007 or 2010, you need to know what date format is being used in Excel.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Friends
Here is the Scenario:
#ifndef _A_H
#define _A_H
class TEST
{
int num;
void fun();
}
TEST* _pObj = new TEST();
_pObj->num++;
I want to access num in this cpp file also
How can I use the same Object in cpp file.
I tried by adding header file. And where do I declare and initialize the TEST class object pointer so that i can use it here
Thanks & Regards
Yogesh
|
|
|
|
|
You can do this by declaring TEST* _pObj as a global pointer in A.cpp.
In SAMPLE.cpp make the declaration extern TEST* _pObj globally.
This way you will be able to access the same object from both the files.
However, I think this is where you need a singleton class.
This way you will be able to access the one and only object of the class from any CPP file in which you include the A.h file.
Here are a couple of articles on singleton -
C++ Design Pattern: What is a Singleton class?[^]
Singleton Pattern & its implementation with C++[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thx For Your Reply And I think creating Singleton is the right way to access.
But If i have SAMPLE.h then is there any way to access TEST class variable and without declaring Global Object pointer?
Regards
Yogesh
modified on Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
if you have a class that's the owner/parent of both of those, he can pass the pointers to one another.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the flow of your program? Or more to the point, what is the lifecycle of your TEST object? In C/C++, when you create an object, then you have to make sure that it will be properly destroyed as well. In this case, since you call new to create your TEST object, you have to make sure that you destroy it again, using delete . Normally you ensure this either by calling delete in the same function where you call new, or, if the object is a member of another class, you call delete in the destructor of this class.
Now we come to your actual question: How can I use this object in another cpp file? I will ask back: How do you call the code in that other cpp file? (And more: how do you execute that code in A.cpp that creates your TEST object?) You somehow have to tell the computer to execute that code, and the only way to do that is by calling a function from that file. You say you don't have a header for that file though - but how then can you call any function from here?
The answer is, you will at some point, somewhere, call a function in your other cpp file - and that is assuming that wherever you call this function from, in that file you must define the prototype for the function that you call! If not by including a header (that you say does not exist), then by manually copying the prototype here.
When you do that call, just add the pointer to the parameter list of that function. That's all. Below is some sample code - I've made a few assumptions about what you did, but made sure it will work this way:
class TEST {
public:
TEST();
int num;
void fun();
}
TEST* createTest();
void destroyTest(TEST* pObj);
#include "A.h"
TEST::TEST() : num(0) {}
void TEST::fun() {}
TEST* createTest() {
TEST* pObj = new TEST();
pObj->num++;
return pObj;
}
void destroyTest(TEST* pObj) {
delete pObj;
}
#include "A.h"
void theUnknownFunction(TEST* p) {
int mynumber = p->num;
}
#include "A.h"
void theUnknownFunction(TEST* p);
int main() {
TEST* pObj = createTest();
theUnknownFunction(pObj);
destroyTest(pObj);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I really hate the answers I'm seeing from other people.
In this code:
yogeshs wrote: //CPP file A.cpp /*In this class I want to create a Pointer of object in some function*/ TEST* _pObj = new TEST(); _pObj->num++;//num already initialize in constructor.
Why is this in A.cpp? He's creating an object of his own type? Although doable, don't think that's what you're trying to accomplish.
If this object is to be used in SAMPLE.cpp, then that's where it should be initialized and accessed (now you don't have to do it this way, but I think that's what you're trying to do).
In Sample.h or Sample.cpp:
#include "A.h"
class CSample
{
public:
CSample(){m_obj = new TEST;}
~CSample(){delete m_obj;}
private:
TEST* m_obj;
};
[edit]
If I'm wrong on what you're trying to accomplish, let me know and I'll clear it up for you.
[/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Guys
Thanks For all your valuable Replies.
Dear Sir,With this solution If I initialize test variable in sample header file then it will create a new instance And I want the same instance tht i used in A.cpp
Bcoz i want to access the same variable tht i update in other file.
I tried by creating singleton class.I made the Test class as Singleton.And then If I call its instance in global variable(Test class Object) then only I cn access the same object by using extern in anoher cpp file.
Is there any other idea so that i dont need to use extern.
Any Ideas?
Regards
Yogesh
modified on Friday, April 15, 2011 3:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I don't quite get why none of the suggested solutions suffice for you. Don't you understand how to use them?
If you want help, we need to understand what you try to accomplish, and you have been less than clear about that. Can you please answer these questions:
- Why do you not want to use extern?
- Why do you want to create an instance of class TEST in A.cpp?
- Do you know what a class is?
- Why do you not provide a header for Sample.cpp?
- How do you even call the functions in Sample.cpp when you don't have a header?
- Have you actually successfully compiled the code you've written so far, or any part of it?
- Did you actually create a project?
Sorry if some of these questions seem inappropriate, but at this point I really don't know what level of experience and knowledge you do have. I honestly just want to determine what I do or don't need to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Stefan
i understand ur condition and i respect for your valuable comments too.
But i have the scenario like this.
I told my situation,and why i am doing this bcoz my project doesnt allow me to do other things.
Not more than info I can provide to you.
in last i m going to use by using Extern variable.
By using Extern makes the performance of my aplication low.
Thanks For all your Valuable answers and comments.
I appreciate your time for my Post.
Thanks & Regards
Yogesh
|
|
|
|
|
My questions (numbering inserted for ease of reference)
Stefan63 wrote: 1 Why do you not want to use extern?
2 Why do you want to create an instance of class TEST in A.cpp?
3 Do you know what a class is?
4 Why do you not provide a header for Sample.cpp?
5 How do you even call the functions in Sample.cpp when you don't have a header?
6 Have you actually successfully compiled the code you've written so far, or any part of it?
7 Did you actually create a project?
Your response (numbers inserted for ease of reference):
yogeshs wrote: 1. By using <layer>Extern makes the performance of my aplication low.
This answer does not make sense, as "extern" has nothing at all to do with runtime performance! You did not answer any of the other questions either, except by saying
yogeshs wrote: my project doesnt allow me to do other things What do you mean? Did you get errors?
Really, if my previous posting had been a test, you'd scored -2 out of 7 points. Fortunately for you it was not a test. But as long as you keep adding nonsensical information rather than answer easy questions, we cannot help you.
|
|
|
|
|
Great response, my 5... I think the OP has no idea what he's doing.
[edit] Or trying to do. [/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally to what others said, you can also create a method to query that one instance.
E.g:
...
TEST *GetTestInstance();
...
and
...
TEST *GetTestInstance()
{
return _pObj;
}
You can also make this a static member of TEST:
class TEST
{
int num;
void fun();
public:
static TEST *GetInstance();
};
and
...
TEST *TEST::GetInstance()
{
return _pObj;
}
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> //TODO: Implement signature here<
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am writing a commandline app that accepts a filename as parameter, and wonder if there is an easy way to convert the filename to a fully qualified filename when starting the app within a directory, and provide a filename that is located in the current working directory.
for example, my app is located in c:\test\myapp.exe, and the file infile.txt is located there as well. So a user can call myapp.exe infile.txt from that directory.
In my app, I'd like to be infile.txt converted to c:\test\infile.txt. Is there a function in the Win API or MFC that automatically expands filenames to full qualified path?
Next step would be to allow relativ paths as well.
Any hint how to do that?
Thanks alot.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure, but check if the PathResolve API does the job for you.
If not, you could maybe call GetCurrentDirectory and then append the filename to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
thanks for your hints, I have also searched in the MSDN Lib myself, and have come to the conclusion that
GetFullPathName
works best for me, since it automatically expands a given filename to the full path. That was exactly what I wanted, and it works.
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a program using CMFCEditBrowseCtrl which had memory leaks. I identified this particular control as the issue. To confirm this, I then built a test program which just has a single CMFCEitBrowseCtrl on the dialog. It leaks upon exit.
I'm in VS2010. I used the app wizard to build a dialog based application using all the default selections. I added the CMFCEditBrowse control using the dialog editor. It compiles OK. It display the dialog and exits with memory leaks. If I remove the control, it exits ok. I can even add a CEdit control and it exits without a memory leak.
The leak is reported like this:
The thread 'Win32 Thread' (0xc3c) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
Detected memory leaks!
Dumping objects ->
{435} client block at 0x01070560, subtype c0, 212 bytes long.
a CMFCVisualManager object at $01070560, 212 bytes long
Object dump complete.
The program '[0x474] testmfcebc.exe: Native' has exited with code 0 (0x0).
Any ideas on how to proceed?
DanL
|
|
|
|
|
I just tried, and cannot reproduce the leak, using VS2010 with the latest service pack.
I create a default dialog based application with the default values, dropped a CMFCEditBrowseCtrl control to the dialog, created/added a variable for it.
build, run, quit. no leaks reported.
I tried different configuration.
Max.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien-
Thanks for taking the time to run that experiment. You solved the problem for me. It appears to have been an issue in the first release. I found a bug post on the Microsoft site by a guy who described leaks with "some" of the controls on a dialog. Microsoft said that they were aware of it. I guess the fix was in Service pack 1... I just installed it and it works correctly now. Thanks again.
-Dan
DanL
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another happy customer!!
glad it did fix it.
Max.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking to see what files are delivered with each Windows Operating system and/or what can be replaced if older versions exist on PCs we are delivering to.
I'm testing another developer's product including the installation CD. He is delivering several DLLs and Active X components (.OCX files). The program will be installed on Windows 98, XP (none or up to Service Pack 3) and Windows 2000. The OCX's are fine. No problems.
The problem is that of some of the files he is delivering, I do not know if they are already a part of the Windows Operating System and whether they should be replaced. My testing has revealed that at least for XP (at least for Service Packs 2 and 3), XP is protecting the files from being replaced even after a temporary file is created and a reboot is performed. Dlls won't be replaced in this situation but OCXs will. We have an older installation program called Setup Factory 6 which may not be up with all of the advances to XP.
Here are the culprits:
comdlg32.dll (does this have to be replaced if a newer version is avail in the delivery?)
msvcrt.dll
mfc42.dll
Which of these files are already expected to be there and should they be replaced if the delivery package has newer versions? I replaced an older version of comdlg32.dll on Windows 98 and it broke 98 because it has a dependency on a newer version of shell32.dll. I've since changed the option to install that file on Windows 98 to "never overwrite existing file".
I also do not know why he is delivering commdlg32.ocx.
Any help would be appreciated. TIA.
|
|
|
|
|
this always turns into a bit of a mess, safest way is to use your own local copy of the dll (without installing on the system folders), although some would disagree because it defeats the purpose of shared dlls (on a system level), but its such a pain sometimes. if you maintain your own local copy (in your own install directory) then its up to you to maintain the version that's appropriate for your software and just do regular updates after that.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the whole reason I am doing it this way is because during testing I discovered some of the OCX's were registered in the program's local directory. Of course, if and when you do an uninstall of the program, its best to leave those files in the program's directory and not delete them. The problem is that a user who knows he uninstalled the program may look at the program's directory and see there's nothing there but DLLs and OCX and do a delete *.* and then other programs that were using the registered locations will no longer work. Same as DLL hell.
I would prefer that the files are left in the system directory such that at least there is less risk of accidental deletion by the user.
|
|
|
|