The C function :
void foo(int* p){
*p = 10;
}
And js call :
var a = 0;
foo(a);
console.log(a);//expect a to be 10
There is no way to have out-parameters for primitive types in JavaScript, and V8's API tries pretty hard not to create behaviors that are inconsistent with JavaScript, because that would be weird™.
An alternative solution is to embed the field in an object:
var a = {value: 0}
foo(a);
console.log(a.value); // This can be made to print 10.
With that approach, you can use the normal way of binding functions via V8's API, and on the C++ side simply modify the respective property of the object that was passed in.
Related
my aim is to capture the screen of a windows form using c++/cli. Below is the code to capture the window, however, it is in C#. What changes do I have to make to the code for it to work in c++?
Graphics myGraphics = this.CreateGraphics();
Size s = this.Size;
memoryImage = new Bitmap(s.Width, s.Height, myGraphics);
Graphics memoryGraphics = Graphics.FromImage(memoryImage);
memoryGraphics.CopyFromScreen(this.Location.X, this.Location.Y, 0, 0, s);
What I've tried:
I've tried using the code below in c++, however, I get errors for the part in ** **.
The error says expected a ; after Size i.e. Size; s = this->Size; which does not make sense to me
Graphics^ myGraphics = this->CreateGraphics();
Size **s** = this->Size;
memoryImage = gcnew Bitmap(**s**->Width, s->Height, myGraphics);
Graphics^ memoryGraphics = Graphics::FromImage(memoryImage);
memoryGraphics->CopyFromScreen(this->Location.X, this->Location.Y, 0, 0, s);
Your code looks mostly correct.
I think that Size s is getting confused because Size is both the name of a type, and the name of a property on this object. It thinks you're trying to retrieve the Size property and throw away the result. To fix this, use the full name of the type for the declaration: System.Drawing.Size s = this->Size;. (You could also use auto, or remove the local variable entirely and just call this->Size several times.)
System.Drawing.Size is a value struct, not a ref class. It's a value type, not a reference type, so you need to do s.Width and s.Height.
This is similar to Location: Location returns a Point, which is a value type, and you're already doing Location.X, not Location->X.
so I was wondering if there was a way to reference different objects on stage with he same method to save repeating lots of lines of code. This is what I have right now
function bossKilled(i:Number):Void {
trace("Boss Killed!");
kills ++;
_root.bossDeath.gotoAndPlay(2);
_root["pirate"+i+"Active"] = false; //name of variable would be pirate1Active
_root["pirate"+(i+1)+"Active"] = true; //name of variable would be pirate2Active
bossDeath._x = _root["pirate"+i+"Active"]._x;
bossDeath._y = _root["pirate"+i+"Active"]._y; }
However, this reference does not actually affect the variables. I was wondering if this was possible, and if so, what am I doing wrong?
Thanks.
Not sure what you try to achieve ... pirate1Active is a BOOL. A BOOL has no _x or _y property (nor any other).
If you are not sure where to find your objects in the object tree, you can use the debugger or add some traces on the MCs timeline, like trace (_parent);
Consider switching to AS3, it is much more object oriented and has better tools support.
I'm trying to understand IOKit and how it allows me to access serial ports in a Swift program.
The class I'm manipulating at the moment is as follows:
import Foundation
import Cocoa
import IOKit.serial.IOSerialKeys
class Serial {
init() {
}
#IBOutlet var serialListPullDown : NSPopUpButton!
func refreshSerialList(defaultprompt: String) {
// remove everything from the pull down list
serialListPullDown?.removeAllItems()
// ask for all the serial ports
IOServiceGetMatchingServices(kIOMasterPortDefault, IOServiceMatching(kIOSerialBSDServiceValue), io_iterator_t)
}
}
Based on what I've read I think I've setup IOServiceMatchingServices correctly but I'm getting several errors such as "Expected member name or constructor call after type name" and "'o_iterator_t.Type' is not convertible to 'UnsafeMutualPointer'"
What does this mean?
A few different issues going on in there -- let's get your imports squared away first. It looks like you need these two:
import IOKit
import IOKit.serial
For the parameters, it'll be easier to see what we're working with if we define them as local variables, like so:
// this one's easy, just grabbing a constant from IOKit.serial
let masterPort: mach_port_t = kIOMasterPortDefault
// here we get back an Unmanaged<CFMutableDictionary> and need to convert it to
// a CFDictionary using takeRetainedValue()
let classesToMatch: CFDictionary = IOServiceMatching(kIOSerialBSDServiceValue).takeRetainedValue()
// the iterator that will contain the results of IOServiceGetMatchingServices
var matchingServices: io_iterator_t = 0
And lastly, you call the method:
// note that the last parameter is an UnsafeMutablePointer<io_iterator_t>
// so we need to prefix matchingServices with an ampersand (&)
let kernResult = IOServiceGetMatchingServices(masterPort, classesToMatch, &matchingServices)
if kernResult == KERN_SUCCESS {
// success
} else {
// error
}
This feels pretty near the edge of what Swift can handle right now -- definitely read these two pages well before going further:
Interacting with C APIs (Pointers section)
Working with Cocoa Data Types (Unmanaged Objects section)
Lastly, make sure you can get into the converted Swift declarations for the IOKit framework. There are a lot of useful comments and you'll be able to see which parameters and return values are unmanaged or pointers (since I don't think this framework's official documentation has been updated yet).
I admittedly know little about the inner workings of javascript, but need to make a library and would like to learn (hence asking here). I understand using the closure and exporting to window to not pollute the global namespace, but beyond that it confuses me a bit.
(function() {
var Drop = window.Drop = function() {
var files = [];
var add = function(word) {
files.push(word);
return files;
}
return {
files: files,
add: add
}
}
})()
// All of these seem to be the same?
var a = Drop();
var b = new Drop();
var c = new Drop;
// Each has their own state which is what I want.
a.add("file1");
b.add("file2");
c.add("file3");
Why are all three ways of "initializing" Drop the same?
What exactly gives them the ability to have their own state?
Is there an alternative to the return syntax to export those functions on Drop?
Is there just a flat out better best practice way of creating a self contained library like this?
I have searched around the net, but have found very little consistency on this subject.
The first way (Drop()) just calls the function as normal, so this is the global object (window in browser environments). It does its stuff and then returns an object, as you'd expect.
The second way (new Drop()) creates a new Drop object and executes the constructor with this set to that object. You do not, however, use this anywhere and return an object created from an object literal, so the Drop object is discarded and the object literal returned instead.
The third way (new Drop) is semantically the same as the second; it is only a syntactic difference.
They all have their own state because each time you call Drop, it has its own set of local variables distinct from the local variables of any other call to Drop.
You could transform your code to use the normal new syntax and prototypes. This has a few advantages: namely, you only create the add function once rather than one for each Drop call. Your modified code might look like this:
function Drop() {
this.files = [];
}
Drop.prototype.add = function(word) {
this.files.push(word);
return this.files;
};
By doing this, though, you lose being able to call it without new. There is, however, a workaround: You can add this as the first line inside function Drop:
if(!(this instanceof Drop)) {
return new Drop();
}
Since when you call it with new, this will be a Drop, and when you call it without new, this will be something other than a Drop, you can see if this is a Drop, and if it is, continue initializing; otherwise, reinvoke it with new.
There is also another semantic difference. Consider the following code:
var drop = new Drop();
var adder = drop.add;
adder(someFile);
Your code will work here. The prototype-based code will not, since this will be the global object, not drop. This, too, has a workaround: somewhere in your constructor, you can do this:
this.add = this.add.bind(this);
Of course, if your library's consumers are not going to pull the function out of the object, you won't need to do this. Furthermore, you might need to shim Function.prototype.bind for browsers that don't have it.
No. It's all a matter of taste.
Why are all three ways of "initializing" Drop the same?
// All of these seem to be the same?
var a = Drop();
var b = new Drop();
var c = new Drop;
When you use new in JavaScript to invoke a function, the value of this inside the function becomes the new object.
But the reason they're the same in your case is that you're not using this at all. You're making a separate object using object literal syntax, and returning it instead, so the new has no impact.
What exactly gives them the ability to have their own state?
Because each function invocation makes a new object, each object is entirely different for each invocation.
The functions assigned to the object are recreated in each Drop invocation, and therefore create a closure over the enclosing variable scope. As such, the files array of each invocation is continuously accessible to the functions made in each respective invocation.
Is there an alternative to the return syntax to export those functions on Drop?
Yes. Assign the functions and array to this, and remove the return statement. But that will require the use of new. Alternatively, put the functions on the .prototype object of Drop, and they'll be shared among all instances made using new, but keep the array assigned to this in the constructor so that it's not shared.
For the prototyped functions to reference the array, they would use this.files.
Is there just a flat out better best practice way of creating a self contained library like this?
JavaScript is very flexible. There are many ways to approach a single problem, each with its own advantages/disadvantages. Generally it'll boil down to taking advantage of closures, of prototypal inheritance, or some combination of both.
Here's a full prototypal inheritance version. Also, the outer (function() {})() isn't being used, so I'm going to add a variable to take advantage of it.
(function() {
var totalObjects = 0; // visible only to functions created in this scope
var Drop = window.Drop = function() {
this.files = [];
this.serialNumber = totalObjects++;
}
Drop.prototype.add = function(word) {
this.files.push(word);
return this.files;
};
})();
I'm using Actionscript 2.0 for a mobile phone and can't get my head around Events.
I'm creating a class object with all my code and using a group of functions (all as direct 1st level children of the class). There's one function that creates a Movieclip with a square on it and sets the onPress event to another function called hit:
public function draw1Sqr(sName:String,pTL:Object,sSide:Number,rgb:Number){
// create a movie clip for the Sqr
var Sqr:MovieClip=this.canvas_mc.createEmptyMovieClip(sName,this.canvas_mc.getNextHighestDepth());
// draw square
Sqr.beginFill(rgb);
//etc ...more lines
//setup properties (these are accessible in the event)
Sqr.sSide=sSide;
Sqr.sName=sName;
//setup event
Sqr.onPress = hit; // this syntax seems to lead to 'this' within
// the handler function to be Sqr (movieclip)
//Sqr.onPress = Delegate.create(this, hit);
//I've read a lot about Delegate but it seems to make things harder for me.
}
Then in my event handler, I just cannot get the scope right...
public function hit(){
for (var x in this){
trace(x + " == " + this[x]);
}
//output results
//onPress == [type Function]
//sName == bSqr_7_4
//sSide == 20
trace(eval(this["._parent"])); //undefined
trace(eval(this["._x"])); //undefined
}
For some reason, although the scope is set to the calling object (Sqr, a Movieclip) and I can access properties I defined, I can't use the 'native' properties of a Movieclip object.
Any suggestions on how I can access the _x, _y and other properties of the Movieclip object that is pressed.
Use the array accessor or the dot accessor, but not both. For example:
trace(this._parent); // OR
trace(this["_parent"]);
As for the results of your iteration, I recall AS2 being screwy on this front. IIRC only dynamic properties are returned when looping with for ... in. This prevents Objects (which often serve as hash maps) from including their native properties when all you want are the key/value pairs you set yourself.
Also - the eval() function can be easily overused. Unless you absolutely must execute a String of AS2 that you don't have at compile-time I would recommend avoiding it. Happy coding!