|
It doesn't work, I got the same error.
Do u know other way to solve it?
Thanks
Alan Shen
|
|
|
|
|
"OLECHAR FAR* szMember =_T("updateList");"
how could you have possibly got the same error, the line above was the line that caused the error, and in the code I posted, that whole line is gone. OLECHAR FAR* wasn't even the right datatype for the param.
Maybe your object file is old, try rebuild all.
Here is the conversion again.
stick this at the top of the cpp file
#include <atlconv.h>
Here is the conversion
DISPID dispid;
DISPPARAMS dispParams;
char* tmpstr =_T("updateList");
USES_CONVERSION;
LPOLESTR szMember = A2OLE(tmpstr);
hresult = lpList->GetIDsOfNames(IID_NULL, &szMember,1,LOCALE_USER_DEFAULT, &dispid); //IHTMLSelectElement
|
|
|
|
|
that is the error:
error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'char [11]' to 'unsigned short *'
Types pointed to are unrelated; conversion requires reinterpret_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast
|
|
|
|
|
To declare a wide char constant, use L"updateList" ( _T("foo") evaluates to L"foo" in unicode, and "foo" in MBCS/ANSI builds)
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, all
I was wondering how to lock (not disable) an edit box during runtime, so the content (the text) in the control can still be selected but not modified/edited. I am using regular Windows API (no MFC) and I also want to be able to unlock the edit box.
Thanks in advance 
Aidman » over and out
We haven't inherited Earth from our parents, instead we have borrowed her from our children; an old Indian saying.
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to do this easily, you'll probably want to use CRichEditCtrl with the read only property enabled instead of CEdit
|
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't setting read only on an Edit gray the box by default? If so, and I can remember it doing that, you'd have to subclass and override.
That's why I suggested the rich edit instead.
|
|
|
|
|
yes it does - (I thought that would be ok with the asker)
However, there's a message you can override in the dialog to proivde a different background brush.
Peter
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
Either use the ES_READONLY style when you create it, or the EM_SETREADONLY message (CEdit::SetReadOnly if you use MFC) at any time after creatign the control
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
As others have mentioned, you use the EM_SETREADONLY message. However, this will cause the edit box to be grayed out. You can still select the text, copy it, etc..
If you want the control to look like a normal edit control, but be read-only, then you need to catch WM_CONTROLCOLOR and look for the controls window handle and return a brush that's the same as the users color preferences.
I'd advise against that, though. It confuses users when a control looks editable, but really isn't.
--
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not new to programming but new to progress bars and I would like to know how to use it (using the default class for it) not some other class.  I would appreciate it if anyone replied
[It is possible to represent everything in this universe by using 0 and 1]
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you use MFC oder plain API? I case of MFC:
Drag a progress bar from the controls toolsbot to your dialog to place it there. Next, create a variable for the CProgressCtrl e.g. using the Class Wizard.
If your variable is named e.g. "m_ctlProgress", you need to set some attributes, you can do this in OnInitDialog():
m_ctlProgress.SetRange(0, 100)
m_ctlProgress.SetRange(1, 255)
you can then set the postion of the blue bar with
m_ctlProgress.SetPos(128);
see MSDN for more information.
regards
modified 12-Sep-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me how to save from a dialog not a SDI or MDI but Dialog.
You know like putting a variable into it or several into a specified external file and opening it. Need Details since I'm kinda new to saving/serializing
[It is possible to represent everything in this universe by using 0 and 1]
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
|
|
|
|
|
//Serialize Save Int
CFileException e;
CFile theFile;
if (!(theFile.Open(filename, CFile::modeWrite | CFile::modeCreate, &e))) { TRACE("can not open file for writing"); return; }
CArchive ar(&theFile, CArchive::store);
int p = 1
ar << p;
//Serialize Load Int
CFileException e;
CFile theFile;
if (!(theFile.Open(filename, CFile::modeRead, &e))) { TRACE("can not open file for reading"); return; }
CArchive ar(&theFile, CArchive::load);
int num;
ar >> num;
Repeat this for everything/datatypes you want to serialize. Can't remember whether you have to close the file after or if MFC takes care of that for you when you serialize, so I left it off.
|
|
|
|
|
The destructor of CFile closes it for you! If you create the CFile object on the heap, you have to close it manually.
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Is hyperthreading anything to get excited about.
XP is meant to support it, so I was wondering if in future apps that I make that are CPU intensive should I consider an architecture that can be modified to use it?
If so, I guess I'm on another learning curve.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
* WARNING *
This could be addictive
The minion's version of "Catch ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) "
It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, from an application's point of view, a HT CPU looks the same as two non-HT CPUs. So you can just use your existing multi-threaded programming talents. 
--Mike--
Ericahist | Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber
Latest art~!@#2rDFA#@(#*%$Rfa39f3fqwf--=
NO CARRIER
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote:
AFAIK, from an application's point of view, a HT CPU looks the same as two non-HT CPUs.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the way it's supposed to look
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
Mike,
Since you have replied I have been looking into this.
As wb (below) suggests their could be some problems.
A threaded app may actually end up running slower on a hyperthreaded CPU. What I am looking for is some sort of a guideline as to what would cause said bottlenecks to occur.
Possibly it appears that hyperthreading is really more use at the multitasking rather than multithreading.
I envisage that you could set up one set of guidelines for the current XEON processor, and then with the next generation the rules will have changed.
Really I must get a hyperthreaded CPU to run my own tests, and try to create the bottlenecks. At the moment my interest is more academic then anything else.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
* WARNING *
This could be addictive
The minion's version of "Catch "
It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
with SimultaneousMultiThreading (or Intel: HT ) you can gain a lot of spead up, but there is stil one CPU with one cache, one set of registers ..... sometimes its even slower then on a normal CPU becaus of CacheTrashing (if two different threads have a mem block , which is mapped to the same cacheline in the CPU cache)
then you have to download VTune from Intel it helps you to find such bottlenecks.
|
|
|
|
|
What you are saying makes sense to me.
HT must have a cost, and at some stage there will be a bad return on usage. I guess it would be possible to spawn countless threads to find where this happened. There are now 3 Levels of cache, and I guess one must hold the main mapping of activity.
I actually think hyperthreading is quite exciting, its a bit like a brain having its own smaller brain to control itself.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
* WARNING *
This could be addictive
The minion's version of "Catch ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) "
It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I have a two part application.
1. Windows 2000 Service
2. A MFC dialog based GUI application to configure the service.
I am communicating between Service and GUI app through file mapping. The problem is service part has created the file and weh GUI app tries to access the file, I am getting error "Access is denied".
Is there any right conflict between system process (service) and user process(GUI app). I am logged through "Administrator".
Any urgent help is neeeded.
regards.
|
|
|
|
|
When you create the file mapping object, you need to specify a DACL -- the LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES parameter that you usually leave NULL to use the default DACL. The trouble with that is that the default DACL for code running as the system account is highly secured, to prevent tampering by other processes.
You'll need to create a DACL that grants access to your admin account, or the admins group.
--Mike--
Ericahist | Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber
aef392rDFA#@(#*@%@#$Rfa39f3fqwf--=
NO CARRIER
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
