|
Just figured it out.
Interspersed within the {..} are #define'd a macro (ESCAPEIF(returnvalue) calls. It's defined to 'break' if an error occurrs.
At the end of the function is the cleanup
thus:
do
{
ret = foo(); //returns a '1'
BREAKONERROR(ret);
} WHILE(FALSE);
//perform cleanup (ie: release memory where needed)
Guess I should have followed the white rabbit a little more ..or took the bluepill.
|
|
|
|
|
goto is better.
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
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: goto is better.
Youre my HERO
codito ergo sum
|
|
|
|
|
goto is dangerous in C++ if care is not taken because jumping out of scope will NOT result in the destructors of any C++ objects in the scope.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
C++ has try-catch blocks, usually goto is not needed.
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
|
|
|
|
|
It's better than using the ugly GOTO method. In a loop you have the option of using break and continue. In this case it's a loop to be run once, unless directed to do otherwise.
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
WalderM wrote: It's better than using the ugly GOTO method.
better how? If you mean more readable I would argue that at best it is indistinguishably better.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
WalderMt's better than using the ugly GOTO method.
I agree that this code is most probably the replacement for goto, but dissagree that it is better. It is even worse, because it hides the intention.
|
|
|
|
|
After a user click, I am pulling a value from a control, converting this into a decimal value and relaying it to another control. The theory is correct, but I just cannot get my code to produce the correct value. This is the formula:
double dZoomFactor = 1 / ( 1 << ( 16 - dwId ) );
where dwId is an integer value between 1 and 16;
In theory:
dZoomFactor = 1 / ( 1 << ( 16 - 1 ) );<br />
dZoomFactor = 1 / ( 1 << 15 );<br />
dZoomFactor = 1 / 32768;<br />
dZoomFactor = 0.000030517578125;
But, the output is always a flat '0.0'. What am I missing?
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
double dZoomFactor = 1.0 / 32768.0;
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
That comes out as 3.0517578125000000e-005. Wish I payed more attention to maths back in school. Right now I'm trying to find out what that e-005 means.
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
WalderMight now I'm trying to find out what that e-005 means.
It means 10^-5, i.e.
3.0517578125000000e-005 = 0.000030517578125000000
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
|
|
|
|
|
Thankyou thankyou thankyou. I have been on google for the last hour trying to find the meaning of that, but every page seems to think it's a universally understood system, kinda makes me feel stupid 
Anyway, my code is now working. Thanks for the help guys 
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, but the 'great firewall of china' prevents me from accessing wikipedia 
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
WalderMouble wrote: dZoomFactor = 1 / ( 1 << ( 16 - dwId ) );
dZoomFactor = 1 / ( 1 << ( 16 - 1 ) );
dZoomFactor = 1 / ( 1 << 15 );
dZoomFactor = 1 / 32768;
dZoomFactor = 0.000030517578125;
You should probably be using double constants (e.g., 1.0, 16.0), so that the math library is properly initialized.
BTW, your name wreaks havoc in the Quote Selected Text feature. It inserts a malformed </b> tag.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I was doing wrong, but that exponent was giving me a real headache, I thought the wrong values were coming out. I hate floating point maths!
Waldermort
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
Are there some formal documents about which physical files contain C++ related libraries' implementation on Windows (i.e. something like mscvp*, to run and build C++ application, all required static lib, import lib and DLL)?
How about the physical files for C (i.e. CRT) and for all Windows API?
BTW: maybe my question should be asked in another way -- the frequently used DLLs (like user32.dll) and related functions, import libraries and static libraies for Windows platform?
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: Are there some formal documents about which physical files contain C++ related libraries' implementation on Windows
No. And if it they did exist you certainly would not find them on the Microsoft web site. 
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks led mike,
What are the frequently used DLLs on Windows and their related functions, like user32.dll? Any referred link about this?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
What do you need exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Hamid,
I mean the frequently used system provided DLLs and their function, like user32.dll. Any ideas?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Why you dont use of tools for check dlls that your program is using them.
|
|
|
|
|
What tool(s) do you use, Hamid? DependencyWalker?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is,its good tools for your problem.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
