Course not. Never think that the compiler is wrong. It's the programmer, always the programmer.
Type: Posts; User: pronecracker
Course not. Never think that the compiler is wrong. It's the programmer, always the programmer.
There's a Common Control for this called SysLink control. It does what you want and more. Don't know if you want to use it. For more information see this page:...
EDIT: My apologies, that was the lamest answer I've ever given one.:p
I guess it's not your own code.
You DON'T want to create dialogs that way!
You're absolutely right, calling InitCommonControls just works:)
Maybe this whole thread is just confirming my stupidity, but now my conclusion is:
To get the standard controls in your program to have the XP look, you need to link commctrl.lib, no matter that...
You can look for yourself, and see that in the winprog tutorial about buttons, never is mentioned how to create a button.
The () is the operator. If you overload it and use it on an object it looks like you're calling a function but in fact you're calling the operator ().
It's just like [], but with braces instead of...
So you should be able to create one with C++, because it should be possible to create a control in C/C++ for use in VB, shouldn't it?
This creates a floating window with a button in it, not a radio button.
Ehm, why without quotes? "static" does work?
I'm not using any common controls. Is linking comctl32.lib really required to make normal buttons look XP-like??
I found out that my IDE is not the culprit. When using Dev-C++ to create a manifest...
Thanks:)
Petzold describes how to add a bitmap as a menu item to a menu.
But how can I create a menu item with a bitmap and a string in it? Like you see in msword for example.
@DavidP,
"Manager" classes are considered bad. The methods and data of your manager classes should be static members of the class that they are "managing".
You don't have to, it happens automatically when the destructor is called.
I know, please don't take my signature too literally:p I sometimes have thoughts like that, because C seems so simple and I sometimes get confused because of all the functionality of C++.
But, why...
Because they are related, they are different kinds of shapes in some sort of drawing program. And they are possibly stored in order from back to front (Z).
Maybe, but then all the elements are as big as the biggest element type, and I don't like that:p although it might not make that much a difference.
Thanks :p didn't even have to debug it, worked immediately:p
nonsense
It is shown, it is right there in front of you.
I think I was most looking for a better way to store multiple...
Then why does it work?
void DeleteNode(struct Node *pNode)
{
if(pNode->pPrev) pNode->pPrev->pNext = pNode->pNext;
if(pNode->pNext) pNode->pNext->pPrev = pNode->pPrev;
...
DeleteNode should do this, if I understand right?
Compare this:
if(player==1)
{
cout << "Player 1" << endl;
}else{
cout << "Player 2" << endl;
}
What I use does work certainly, but I was not sure if all of the memory was freed correctly. As the free() function takes a void* parameter, my guess is that the pointer type does not really matter ?