|
ajmalsiddiqi wrote: while(PeekMessage(pmsg, NULL, 0, 0, PM_NOREMOVE)) // -(1)
{
switch(pmsg ->message)
{
case MSG_RE_START:
// log here pending messages in queue
//do some functionality
break;
case MSG_RE_STOP:
// log here pending messages in queue
//do some functionality
break;
case MSG_RE_DATA:
// get number of pending messages
//Process data
break;
}
PeekMessage(pmsg, NULL, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE); // -(2)
}
In this code the PeekMessage is not "inside the switch", it's in the while. Match up the brackets in the code you posted.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
it must be inside the inner loop and out of the switch.
ajmalsiddiqui
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to create a class derived from CComboBox which replaces the normal dropdown with a window containing a calendar control plus a few clickable areas. My first instinct is to create a very basic window which has the calendar as a child window and paints these clickable areas itself. When the dropdown arrow is clicked we create and show this window and somehow suppress the normal dropdown.
Is this the 'correct' way to tackle this? After trying it out I'm having a number of problems  The most glaring is that when the dropdown window is displayed the frame of the hosting dialog changes, ruining the illusion that the dropdown is part of the combobox. I think this may be because the dropdown window is a WS_POPUP (to avoid being restricted to the CCombobox client area). When the dropdown is active, the dialog isn't, causing the frame to be redrawn. That's my guess anyway.
There are numerous other problems which need to be tackled: how to handle focus, mouse capture etc; how to suppress the normal dropdown list; how to handle events such as the Windows button being pressed (i.e. how to automatically cancel the dropdown). These can probably wait for now though 
Anyone have any solid suggestions about how to create this custom dropdown? Any good links, blogs, books, or articles?
modified on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to look at my article: Generic Picker Dropdown Control[^] or the article that I drew inspiration from: Office 97 style Colour Picker control[^]
Both of these will let you have a combo-box-like control, which then pops up another control You should be able to adapt them to show a calendar control instead.
I hope that helps,
Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww).
|
|
|
|
|
Nice article, but it doesn't address the specific problem I described. I ran your demo app and sure enough the frame of the dialog changes to reflect that it is no longer active or has focus, or whatever the change of frame painting means  . Compare this to the Date Time Picker control (which is loosely what I'm trying to mimic): when its dropdown window is shown it doesn't cause any change to the dialog, and feels integrated with the rest of the control. It's a minor detail, but it's one which makes me think my basic approach is wrong somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - you may have a point about my control! Nice catch.
Sorry it didn't help you however.
Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww).
|
|
|
|
|
Try creating your "dropdown" invisible and then show it with ShowWindow(SW_SHOWNOACTIVATE)[^], maybe that will help.
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> Sometimes you just have to hate coding to do it well. <
|
|
|
|
|
No dice.
After some playing around it seems as though setting the focus is what triggers the repainting of the dialog's frame. If the dropdown is created as a child (of the combobox), it doesn't redraw to show loss of focus. But the dropdown can't be a child due to clipping. If it's a popup then it causes the frame to be painted differently when the focus switches, which is what I was hoping to avoid.
Catch 22 for the time being. But this must be a very solveable problem...
|
|
|
|
|
Where does the focus go then? I guess you are not moving the focus to your popup ...umm... "explicitly". Maybe try removing the WS_TABSTOP style from controls on the popped-up window or somesuch... is your popup maybe a dialog? If yes then it probably places the focus onto whatever comes first on it that can receive the focus automatically, you can avoid that by returning FALSE from OnInitDialog[^].
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> Sometimes you just have to hate coding to do it well. <
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all..
I'm currently capturing screenshots and I want to save the images as files..
did manage to do it, but in .bmp format 
I would like to know if there is a method to directly save the image as .jpg OR is there a possibility of converting the .bmp file to .jpg
'm coding in win32, using VS-2008
look forward to ur replies..
thank yu 
|
|
|
|
|
you can use
System.Drawing.Bitmap class to do the conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
Vijjuuuuuuuuu........... wrote: System.Drawing.Bitma
Which MFC class is that?
Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww).
|
|
|
|
|
Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote: Which MFC class is that?
I believe it exists in MFC (My Friend C#) framework. 
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]
|
|
|
|
|
System.Drawing.Bitmap class exists in .net framework he can add the reference and use that class in win32 as managed c++ .
|
|
|
|
|
Also painters and decorators exist and you may add their phone numbers to the header files.
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATL/MFC provides the CImage class (see, for instance [^]).
You may also use directly GDI+ Image class [^].
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
is there any windows event which tell to the application thatthere is date change ?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
You might look into the WM_TIMECHANGE message.
Another option would be to set up a timer to fire every minute. Keep track of the date each time the timer fires.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
check for changed date...
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Long story, this isnt the exact use case but its a representation of the problem im having.
Lets say i then call a function that takes a Char*, i pass into this function "Hello!", upon arriving at this function the pointer lets say points to 0x55 containing "Hello!", this function then does bit manipulation on the Char*, so it now says "!olleH" at location 0x55
Now I again pass "Hello!" into the same function that takes a Char*, it goes directly to 0x55 and does the exact same bit manipulation, UNDOING the "encoding" and bringing the text back to "Hello!" rather than actually passing in a new instance of "Hello!" that i passed into it and encoding it to "!olleH" as it should.
Its as if the compiler is optimizing and any time it see's "Hello!" being passed through this function to just go straight to that memory location not knowing ive done bitwise things too it.
How do i stop this from happening or how can i trick the compiler into stopping this?
If i sprintf "Hello!" into a temporary buffer, and then print that, it works fine. But thats not a solution I can use unfortunately as there are hundreds if not thousands of lines that print "Hello!".
During my bitwise manipulation i've tried to create a new char, copy my text over to it, bit manipulate the new char, and then copy it back. But no luck, it just seems to point to that same location when i call the function.
|
|
|
|
|
how about you post the smallest fragment(s)/part(s) of code that demonstrate the issue - its a bit hard without seeing the function def, how you're calling it etc etc - please use the [code block] pre & /pre xml around your code as well
'g'
|
|
|
|
|
So i have two functions
void Send(Char* Input, UINT32 DisplayType)
UINT8 SwapBits(UINT8 b)
I then call
Send("Hello", 0);
Which gets the length of Input and then
for(int i=0;i < len;i++)
{
Input[i] = SwapBits(Input[i]);
}
While doing this i have WinDbg open and look at the pointer location for Input, lets say its x00500, you can see all 5 characters in Hello and their hex codes in Byte view.
Swapbits reverses the hi 4 bits for the low 4 bits in each UINT8 byte put in. It does this through a lot of bit manipulation, i dont have the code available now but it doesnt matter its not pertinent really. So instead of having a Hex of 0x25 fed in, it outputs 0x52. Sort of a ghetto encryption method.
All good so far.
Now call this again...
Send("Hello", 0);
if you look at the pointer it uses it does NOT create a new char* pointer. Instead it points to the one it made the first time at 0x500(still encrypted). Obviously passing in the bit swapped value just bit swaps it back. So swapbits outputs 0x25, from the previous example.
Every time you call Send("Hello", 0) it will point to 0x500 not knowing its been manipulated. It has to be some compiler thing trying to optimize these strings used multiple times only delcaring them in memory once, but its breaking everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I think the problem you're having is how the compiler handles string literals by default. Every sting constant such as your "Hello!" has to be stored in your .exe file. By default, I think, VC++ combines indentical string literals into one instance to save space. Most of the time, these are put into programs to be treated as constants. In your case, you're saying it's ok to modify the memory locations that hold "Hello!". Since the compiler combines all instances of "Hello!" into one, all pointers to it will point to the same block of memory. Change that memory and it's changed for all instances.
I think there's a compiler or linker flag to force code generation to not combine string literals but I couldn't find it when I looked. Maybe they did away with it since the last version I saw that had it and now you're stuck with what you're seeing.
One way around it would be to define "Hello!" once and copy it to a separate buffer each time you want to play with it.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
|
|
|
|
|
No, no, no, no! no.
In your example, you are sending the text as a constant - the compiler can do whatever it chooses to store/optimize constant usage. In my case something like that crashes...
What you should be doing is along the lines of:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char *manip(char *manipMe)
{
return strrev(manipMe);
}
int main()
{
char *manipMe;
manipMe = (char*)malloc(strlen("Hello world!\n")+1);
strcpy(manipMe, "Hello world!\n");
printf("%s","Hello world!\n");
printf("%s",manip(manipMe));
printf("%s",manip(manipMe));
return 0;
}
Output:
Hello world!
!dlrow olleHHello world!
Process returned 0 (0x0) execution time : 0.031 s
Press any key to continue.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
