// ... handle directory here
// ... handle file here
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
No, the real syntactic extension is the 'with' clause...
Seriously, I had a slide that said
WIN32_FIND_DATA fd;
HANDLE h = FindFirstFile(_T"*.*"), &fd);
if(h != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
{ /* valid pattern found */
do
{ /* find loop */
if( (fd.dwFileAttributes &
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY) != 0)
...handle directory here
else
...handle file here
} /* file loop */
while(FindNextFile(h, &fd));
FindClose(h);
} /* valid pattern found */
and a student wanted to do a project of searching for all files. He then
complained that
my code had a serious syntax error in it. Apparently
...handle directory here
and
...handle file here
were surprising in that they compiler thought they were syntactically
illegal (the fact
that these were also in italics hadn't penetrated his consciousness).
I was also asked once in class "how do I do..." and I wrote a little code
fragment on the
board, which the student duly copied down. The next day, he brought his
laptop in, and
said "your code doesn't compile". I had used names like "p" and "count"
and he had
plunked it down in the middle of an existing piece of code that used names
like "objref"
and "i" and hadn't renamed the variables into his problem domain (how he
figured I'd know
his variable names escapes me...)
joe
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:14:17 -0700, "Tom Serface"
<tom.nospam@camaswood.com> wrote:
Hey, I new about do {}while(), but not "do something". That's a cool new
function I'm sure :o)
Tom
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
news:38uit3h76ld5g3o6kh3sg5prc6go8vmogi@4ax.com...
thread:
CString * s = new CString;
s->Format(...stuff...);
PostMessage(UWM_LOG_DATA, (WPARAM) s);
receiver
LRESULT CMyClass::OnLogData(WPARAM wParam, LPARAM)
{
CString * s = (CString *)wParam;
do something with string
delete s;
return 0;
}
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:45:37 -0700, "Tom Serface"
<tom.nospam@camaswood.com> wrote:
My guess is that with PostMessage your string was going out of scope
before
being used by the window (when message processed). SendMessage() will
cause
the thread to wait until the message is processed and may not be what
you
really want. Maybe you could add the string object as a CString to your
thread class then it would always be in scope so long as that object
exists?
You could copy the other string data (from wherever in your thread) to
that
class member (or members if more than on string needed). What I
typically
do is create a object for the data I want to pass around and make a new
object in the thread that is deleted after being used in the handler.
That
seems to work pretty well.
Tom
"Torsten Hensel" <Hensz@expires-31-03-2008.news-group.org> wrote in
message
news:1205417580.04@user.newsoffice.de...
Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
PostMessage is robust, up to the issue of message queue saturation
(the
result of sending
thousands of messages per second), and I have a generalization that
works
even in this
situation, although it is probably overkill in yours.
I changed my application that it now uses messages - but SendMessage
instead of PostMessage. With PostMessage I could not send strings (I
received access violations).
But what about closing the application? Currently I'm using
PostMessage(WM_QUIT, ErrorCode, 0); which is quite brute. Before that
I
tried EndDialog, but this failed when I used a worker thread.
Best regards,
Torsten
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@flounder.com
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@flounder.com
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm