|
This is not your whole code - this is only Form1. My suspicion is that you might have a problem in one of the following lines:
Note newNote = new Note();
Search newSearch = new Search();
SRLS newSRLS = new SRLS();
Alarm newAlarm = new Alarm();
QuickLaunch newQuickLaunch = new QuickLaunch();
Calender newCalender = new Calender();
Time newformtime = new Time(); To prove this, you need to set a breakpoint in your Form_Load to see if you ever actually hit the Form_Load event. If you get the exception beforehand, then it's likely that your problem is in there (and the problem is that you have something that is recursively calling the same method).
Now, your coding style - it's never a good idea to leave default names for items you have any form of interaction with in your code, so you should rename things like button1, etc, to something much more meaningful. Also, you could condense a lot of your methods down. Take this one:
if (newAlarm.Visible == true)
{
alarmToolStripMenuItem.Checked = false;
newAlarm.Visible = false;
}
else if (newAlarm.Visible == false)
{
alarmToolStripMenuItem.Checked = true;
newAlarm.Visible = true;
}That could be rewritten more succinctly (and clearly) as:
newAlarm.Visible = !newAlarm.Visible;<br />
alarmToolStripMenuItem.Checked = newAlarm.Visible; You could get terser than that, but this is fairly clear in what it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly a few presentation points:
If you ever post code again, use the "code block" and "inline code" buttons differently.
You used "inline code":
private void CMS_CheckChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)<br />
{<br />
foreach (ToolStripItem item in ((ToolStripDropDownItem)sender).Owner.Items)<br />
{<br />
if (item.GetType() == typeof(ToolStripMenuItem))<br />
{<br />
if (item == sender)<br />
((ToolStripMenuItem)item).Checked = true;<br />
else ((ToolStripMenuItem)item).Checked = false;<br />
}<br />
}<br />
}
If you had used "code block" instead it would have preserved the formatting:
private void CMS_CheckChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
foreach (ToolStripItem item in ((ToolStripDropDownItem)sender).Owner.Items)
{
if (item.GetType() == typeof(ToolStripMenuItem))
{
if (item == sender)
((ToolStripMenuItem)item).Checked = true;
else ((ToolStripMenuItem)item).Checked = false;
}
}
}See how much easier it is to read?
There is a "Preview" button at the bottom - try it and see if it looks readable!
Also, don't post your whole file - just the relevant bits! Otherwise we have to scroll through the whole lot to get to the reply button - this discourages people from bothering...
Secondly general good things to do in code:
In the example above (and others) you are casting the sender parameter directly to a ToolStripDropDownItem. What happens if you re-use the method? Answer: your program crashes with a "cannot convert" error. Instead, always check before you cast. Either use:
if (sender is ToolStripDropDownItem_
{
ToolStripDropDownItem item = (ToolStripDropDownItem) sender;
...
} or
ToolStripDropDownItem item = sender as ToolStripDropDownItem;
if (item != null)
{
...
}I prefer the later as it makes the null check explicit.
This is part of what is called "Defensive Programming" and trust me, it is something well worth getting into the habit of!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
systemerror121 wrote: Form2 newForm2 = new Form2();
private void button11_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
newForm2.Visible = true;
}
I bet you have same kind of code (like the one given below) in Form2 also.
Form1 newForm1 = new Form1();
private void button11_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
newForm1.Visible = true;
}
"Never put off until run time what you can do at compile time."
- David Gries, in "Compiler Construction for Digital Computers", circa 1969.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not looking into your code, as you're abusing the CODE and PRE tags: regular text needs neither, multi-line code snippets need PRE tags so indentation gets preserved.
The most popular way to create an SOE is by referring to some property inside its own getter/setter.
|
|
|
|
|
It has been a while since I did winForms, but shouldn't you actually implement InitializeComponent if you are going to call it in the constructor?
Also give your controls reasonable names. Unless your app is replicating a phone or a calculator you should never have things like button7 and button9.
|
|
|
|
|
The WinForms designer implemented InitializeComponent in a Form1.Designer.cs source file, which is why you don't see it in the OP's source. Notice that the class is declared as partial - that allows a single class implementation to span multiple source files.
|
|
|
|
|
You probably have the Form2 creating a new Form1 but you didn't post that code.
A word of advice, next time put the question/problem/error before the code. At first I couldn't see what you were asking, if anything!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, your program contains an infinite (or too deep) recursion. We cannot really tell where, since you have not posted your whole program. As adviced above, set breakpoints in the constructors at InitializeComponent of both forms you are instantiating. Then, step into the code and observe what is happening there... Have you manually modified the IDE generated InitializeComponent method? Have you used Designer to put your form together or have you done it manually?
By the way (to the english native speakers): does the verb "to squrid up" really exist?
|
|
|
|
|
I want to create ' a button ' on Excel 2007 ribbon, File tab, Font group to change Font of select cells.
If possible I want to create Add-In file in Visual Studio 2010/ VS2008.
|
|
|
|
|
And what is the problem you have with this task?
If you want to add a button to an existing group on existing tab, I think it would be easier to do it in VBA.
Don't forget to rate answer, that helped you. It will allow other people find their answers faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sardar.nale wrote: classes for video chat
You want to take online night classes, or do you want us to do your work for you? Tell you what, you write an efficient routing algorithm that can load and manipulate 120GB worth of major and minor road networks for a wide variety of vehicle types, allowing varying levels of speed restrictions per vehicle type, in realtime, and I'll write your video chat classes. Do we have a deal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry that I didn't take you seriously. Now, what you need to do is implement the Liquid Nitrogen[^] framework.
|
|
|
|
|
You might have more success if you google: "video chat tutorial" which will give you loads of hits.
Lazy, lazy, lazy...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i tried to create a transparent panel it worked using the
protected override CreateParams CreateParams<br />
{<br />
get<br />
{<br />
CreateParams cp = base.CreateParams;<br />
cp.ExStyle |= 0x20;<br />
return cp;<br />
}<br />
}
but now i'm trying move a rectangle in this panel,when doing this the transparency goes and the panel goes to it normal back color. any one having an idea how to solve this
i'm using this panel to because under this panel there is another panel that contains a screen shot,so when i'm moving the rectangle in the transparent panel, use sees it as in the 2nd panel.
thanx in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of that, use a single panel, and draw the background image yourself in the Paint event. Then draw your rectangle on top of that.
Why complicate things with two panels?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
thanx for your suggestion, but i can't use that panel because two panels are used by two different panels.
any more suggestions..!
thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
prasadbuddhika wrote: hat panel because two panels are used by two different panels
 Any chance of that in English?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
oh... sorry ..! i meant two panels are used by two threads..!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a custom collection which wraps a List<T>. I want to provide a conversion operator for the consumers convenience to List<T> but would you recommend:
1. Just returning the innerList
public static explicit operator List<T>(MyList<T> myList)
{
return myList.innerList
}
2. Cloning by creating a new List<T> from the innerList
public static explicit operator List<T>(MyList<T> myList)
{
return new List<T>(myList);
}?
Obviously the first is way faster, but then any changes after an explicit cast would also be reflected in the collection :undecided:
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier.
Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
modified on Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
You can just return a readonly version of the list, which is just as fast as returning the list unaltered (with the added benefit that the caller cannot modify the contents of the underlying list):
public static explicit operator System.Collections.ObjectModel.ReadOnlyCollection<int>(MyList<T> myList)
{
return myList.innerList.AsReadOnly();
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, but I'm already implementing that in a method AsReadOnly() to provide consistant operation with the standard List<T> plus that would be an explicit cast to ReadOnlyCollection<T> and not List<T>.
I'm not concerned about keeping it read only, but more concerned about what a consumer of my collection would expect the behaviour to be. Maybe I just shouldn't provide the operator so there can't be any confusion?
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier.
Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
