I've noticed that calling GetSize() on ID2D1HwndRenderTarget returns 0,0 if this call is made after a BeginDraw() call. It returns the correct value otherwise.
Is this "normal" behaviour? I haven't seen it documented in any examples. I did spend a few hours scratching my head over this.
This is a normal behaviour.
In your case, the method returns its const defined return value.
virtual D2D1_SIZE_F GetSize() const = 0;
Most probably, the method fails inside, because the render target could not be "acquired" inside a BeginDraw/EndDraw loop.
BeginDraw and EndDraw are used to indicate that a render target is in
use by the Direct2D system. Different implementations of
ID2D1RenderTarget might behave differently when BeginDraw is called.
An ID2D1BitmapRenderTarget may be locked between BeginDraw/EndDraw
calls, a DXGI surface render target might be acquired on BeginDraw and
released on EndDraw, while an ID2D1HwndRenderTarget may begin batching
at BeginDraw and may present on EndDraw, for example.
Remarks section:
ID2D1RenderTarget::BeginDraw method
Related
when it doesn't return any value, what are it essence?. And most method with void I have seen have println in is block of statements. what println display is it not a value? what determine is usage(void type method)?
Note: I am novice to programming. And all answers I have seen on void type method are about , doesn't return value.
If a function returns void, it means any action the function does is through "side-effects".
Side effects are when a function directly changes the state of something external to the function itself.
When you have a function that prints to the screen using println, it's modifying the global output stream (which is outside of the function) by inserting into it whatever text you gave it.
Keep in mind though functions can have side effects and return a value at the same time. A pop operation usually modifies the stack object by removing an element from it (side effects), then returns whatever object it popped.
Side effects aren't necessary in most cases, but they can be useful. In the above pop example, if the method didn't modify the stack directly, it would need to return both a new stack with an element removed, and the removed element. Two things are returned at once usually by wrapping them in something like a tuple.
If your code returns everything and relies on side effects as little as possible, it's known as functional code. If you have code that relies on side effects, it's known as imperative code (gross simplification, but it gets the idea accross).
Hi this is in regard to some code given in C++ CLI i action which i have trouble understanding.The code is given below
delegate bool EnumWindowsDelegateProc(
IntPtr hwnd,IntPtr lParam);
ref class WindowEnumerator
{
private:
EnumWindowsDelegateProc^ _WindowFound;
public:
WindowEnumerator(EnumWindowsDelegateProc^ handler)
{
_WindowFound = handler;
}
void Init()
{
pin_ptr<EnumWindowsDelegateProc^> tmp = &_WindowFound;
EnumWindows((WNDENUMPROC)
Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(
_WindowFound).ToPointer(), 0);
}
};
In the above code _WindowFound has been pinned so GC wont moove it.The Question is
Isn't tmp only valid inside Int() thus _WindowFound pinned only
during call to Int() ?
If thats the case Isn't there a chance the delegate location in
memory might change at the time EnumWindows calls it as a function
pointer?
A pin_ptr<> automatically unpins, RAII-style, when code execution leaves the block that it is declared it. So it will be pinned for the entire body of the Init() method in your code. So your 2 bullet does not apply.
It is notable that the code is in not infact correct. It works, but by accident. Marshal.GetFunctionPointerForDelegate() invokes the stub compiler to auto-generate the native code that's needed to allow the native code to invoke the delegate target. The lifetime of that stub is controlled by the lifetime of the delegate object. In other words, as soon as the delegate object gets garbage collected, the stub will be destroyed as well.
Pinning the delegate object does not in any way affect the stub. It is already unmovable, the GC never moves code. It works by accident because pinning an object requires creating an extra GC handle for the object (GCHandle::Alloc), enough to prevent premature collection.
It doesn't make an enormous difference in this kind of code, EnumWindows() is slow anyway. Not necessarily the case when you call other native code that requires a callback, avoiding pinning should always be a goal in general. All you have to do is let the jitter see a reference to the delegate object beyond the code where it can still be used, like this:
void Init() {
EnumWindows((WNDENUMPROC)
Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(
_WindowFound).ToPointer(), 0);
GC::KeepAlive(_WindowFound);
}
Very efficient, GC::KeepAlive() doesn't generate any code, it just tells the jitter to extend the lifetime of the _WIndowFound reference so it can't be collected while EnumWindows() is executing. Even that is overkill in this specific case since somebody is going to have a reference to the WindowEnumerator object in order to retrieve _WindowFound, but better safe than sorry.
Is it legal/proper c++0x to leave an object moved for the purpose of move-construction in a state that can only be destroyed? For instance:
class move_constructible {...};
int main()
{
move_constructible x;
move_constructible y(std::move(x));
// From now on, x can only be destroyed. Any other method will result
// in a fatal error.
}
For the record, I'm trying to wrap in a c++ class a c struct with a pointer member which is always supposed to be pointing to some allocated memory area. All the c library API relies on this assumption. But this requirement prevents to write a truly cheap move constructor, since in order for x to remain a valid object after the move it will need its own allocated memory area. I've written the destructor in such a way that it will first check for NULL pointer before calling the corresponding cleanup function from the c API, so that at least the struct can be safely destroyed after the move.
Yes, the language allows this. In fact it was one of the purposes of move semantics. It is however your responsibility to ensure that no other methods get called and/or provide proper diagnostics. Note, usually you can also use at least the assignment operator to "revive" your variable, such as in the classical example of swapping two values.
See also this question
What is a "Handle" when discussing resources in Windows? How do they work?
It's an abstract reference value to a resource, often memory or an open file, or a pipe.
Properly, in Windows, (and generally in computing) a handle is an abstraction which hides a real memory address from the API user, allowing the system to reorganize physical memory transparently to the program. Resolving a handle into a pointer locks the memory, and releasing the handle invalidates the pointer. In this case think of it as an index into a table of pointers... you use the index for the system API calls, and the system can change the pointer in the table at will.
Alternatively a real pointer may be given as the handle when the API writer intends that the user of the API be insulated from the specifics of what the address returned points to; in this case it must be considered that what the handle points to may change at any time (from API version to version or even from call to call of the API that returns the handle) - the handle should therefore be treated as simply an opaque value meaningful only to the API.
I should add that in any modern operating system, even the so-called "real pointers" are still opaque handles into the virtual memory space of the process, which enables the O/S to manage and rearrange memory without invalidating the pointers within the process.
A HANDLE is a context-specific unique identifier. By context-specific, I mean that a handle obtained from one context cannot necessarily be used in any other aribtrary context that also works on HANDLEs.
For example, GetModuleHandle returns a unique identifier to a currently loaded module. The returned handle can be used in other functions that accept module handles. It cannot be given to functions that require other types of handles. For example, you couldn't give a handle returned from GetModuleHandle to HeapDestroy and expect it to do something sensible.
The HANDLE itself is just an integral type. Usually, but not necessarily, it is a pointer to some underlying type or memory location. For example, the HANDLE returned by GetModuleHandle is actually a pointer to the base virtual memory address of the module. But there is no rule stating that handles must be pointers. A handle could also just be a simple integer (which could possibly be used by some Win32 API as an index into an array).
HANDLEs are intentionally opaque representations that provide encapsulation and abstraction from internal Win32 resources. This way, the Win32 APIs could potentially change the underlying type behind a HANDLE, without it impacting user code in any way (at least that's the idea).
Consider these three different internal implementations of a Win32 API that I just made up, and assume that Widget is a struct.
Widget * GetWidget (std::string name)
{
Widget *w;
w = findWidget(name);
return w;
}
void * GetWidget (std::string name)
{
Widget *w;
w = findWidget(name);
return reinterpret_cast<void *>(w);
}
typedef void * HANDLE;
HANDLE GetWidget (std::string name)
{
Widget *w;
w = findWidget(name);
return reinterpret_cast<HANDLE>(w);
}
The first example exposes the internal details about the API: it allows the user code to know that GetWidget returns a pointer to a struct Widget. This has a couple of consequences:
the user code must have access to the header file that defines the Widget struct
the user code could potentially modify internal parts of the returned Widget struct
Both of these consequences may be undesirable.
The second example hides this internal detail from the user code, by returning just void *. The user code doesn't need access to the header that defines the Widget struct.
The third example is exactly the same as the second, but we just call the void * a HANDLE instead. Perhaps this discourages user code from trying to figure out exactly what the void * points to.
Why go through this trouble? Consider this fourth example of a newer version of this same API:
typedef void * HANDLE;
HANDLE GetWidget (std::string name)
{
NewImprovedWidget *w;
w = findImprovedWidget(name);
return reinterpret_cast<HANDLE>(w);
}
Notice that the function's interface is identical to the third example above. This means that user code can continue to use this new version of the API, without any changes, even though the "behind the scenes" implementation has changed to use the NewImprovedWidget struct instead.
The handles in these example are really just a new, presumably friendlier, name for void *, which is exactly what a HANDLE is in the Win32 API (look it up at MSDN). It provides an opaque wall between the user code and the Win32 library's internal representations that increases portability, between versions of Windows, of code that uses the Win32 API.
A HANDLE in Win32 programming is a token that represents a resource that is managed by the Windows kernel. A handle can be to a window, a file, etc.
Handles are simply a way of identifying a particulate resource that you want to work with using the Win32 APIs.
So for instance, if you want to create a Window, and show it on the screen you could do the following:
// Create the window
HWND hwnd = CreateWindow(...);
if (!hwnd)
return; // hwnd not created
// Show the window.
ShowWindow(hwnd, SW_SHOW);
In the above example HWND means "a handle to a window".
If you are used to an object oriented language you can think of a HANDLE as an instance of a class with no methods who's state is only modifiable by other functions. In this case the ShowWindow function modifies the state of the Window HANDLE.
See Handles and Data Types for more information.
A handle is a unique identifier for an object managed by Windows. It's like a pointer, but not a pointer in the sence that it's not an address that could be dereferenced by user code to gain access to some data. Instead a handle is to be passed to a set of functions that can perform actions on the object the handle identifies.
So at the most basic level a HANDLE of any sort is a pointer to a pointer or
#define HANDLE void **
Now as to why you would want to use it
Lets take a setup:
class Object{
int Value;
}
class LargeObj{
char * val;
LargeObj()
{
val = malloc(2048 * 1000);
}
}
void foo(Object bar){
LargeObj lo = new LargeObj();
bar.Value++;
}
void main()
{
Object obj = new Object();
obj.val = 1;
foo(obj);
printf("%d", obj.val);
}
So because obj was passed by value (make a copy and give that to the function) to foo, the printf will print the original value of 1.
Now if we update foo to:
void foo(Object * bar)
{
LargeObj lo = new LargeObj();
bar->val++;
}
There is a chance that the printf will print the updated value of 2. But there is also the possibility that foo will cause some form of memory corruption or exception.
The reason is this while you are now using a pointer to pass obj to the function you are also allocating 2 Megs of memory, this could cause the OS to move the memory around updating the location of obj. Since you have passed the pointer by value, if obj gets moved then the OS updates the pointer but not the copy in the function and potentially causing problems.
A final update to foo of:
void foo(Object **bar){
LargeObj lo = LargeObj();
Object * b = &bar;
b->val++;
}
This will always print the updated value.
See, when the compiler allocates memory for pointers it marks them as immovable, so any re-shuffling of memory caused by the large object being allocated the value passed to the function will point to the correct address to find out the final location in memory to update.
Any particular types of HANDLEs (hWnd, FILE, etc) are domain specific and point to a certain type of structure to protect against memory corruption.
A handle is like a primary key value of a record in a database.
edit 1: well, why the downvote, a primary key uniquely identifies a database record, and a handle in the Windows system uniquely identifies a window, an opened file, etc, That's what I'm saying.
Think of the window in Windows as being a struct that describes it. This struct is an internal part of Windows and you don't need to know the details of it. Instead, Windows provides a typedef for pointer to struct for that struct. That's the "handle" by which you can get hold on the window.,
When I am making methods with return values, I usually try and set things up so that there is never a case when the method is called in such a way that it would have to return some default value. When I started I would often write methods that did something, and would either return what they did or, if they failed to do anything, would return null. But I hate having ugly if(!null) statements all over my code,
I'm reading a re-guide to ruby that I read many moons ago, by the pragmatic programmers, and I notice that they often return self (ruby's this) when they wouldn't normally return anything. This is, they say, in order to be able to chain method calls, as in this example using setters that return the object whose attributes they set.
tree.setColor(green).setDecor(gaudy).setPractical(false)
Initially I find this sort of thing attractive. There have been a couple of times when I have rejoiced at being able to chain method calls, like Player.getHand().getSize() but this is somewhat different in that the object of the method call changes from step to step.
What does Stack Overflow think about return values? Are there any patterns or idioms that come to mind warmly when you think of return values? Any great ways to avoid frustration and increase beauty?
In my humble opinion, there are three kinds of return-cases that you should take into consideration:
Object property manipulation
The first is the manipulation of object properties. The pattern you describe here is very often used when manipulating objects. A very typical scenario is using it together with a factory. Consider this hypothetical creation call:
// When the object has manipulative methods:
Pizza p = PizzaFactory().create().addAnchovies().addTomatoes();
// When the factory has manipulative methods working on the
// object, IMHO more elegant from a semantic point of view:
Pizza p = PizzaFactory().create().addAnchovies().addTomatoes().getPizza();
It allows for a quick grasp at what exactly is being created or how an object is manipulated, because the methods form one human-readable expression. It's definitely nice, but don't overuse. A rule of thumb is that this might be used with methods whose return value you could also declare as void.
Evaluating object properties
The second might be when a method evaluates something on an object. Consider, for example, the method car.getCurrentSpeed(), that could be interpreted as a message to an object asking for the current speed and returning that. It would simply return the value, not too complicated. :)
Make object do this or that
The third might be when a method makes an perform an operation, returning some sort of value indicating how well the caller's intention was fulfilled - but laying out such a method could be difficult:
int new_gear = 20;
if (car.gears.changeGear(new_gear)) // does that mean success or fail?
This is where you can see a difficulty in designing the method. Should it return 0 upon success or failure? How about -1 if the gear could not be set, because the car only has 5 gears? Does that mean the current gear is at -1 now, too? The method could return the gear it changed to, meaning you would have to compare the argument supplied to the method to the return code. That would work. On the other hand, you could simply return either true or false for failure or false or true for failure. Which one to use could be decided by estimating if you'd expect those method calls to rather fail or succeed.
In my humble opinion, there is a way to better express the semantics of such return values, by giving them a semantic description. Future developers interacting with your objects will love you for not having to look up the comments or documentation for your methods:
class GearSystem {
// (...)
public:
enum GearChangeResult
{ GearChangeSuccess, NonExistingGear, MechanicalGearProblem };
GearChangeResult changeGear (int gear);
};
That way, it becomes perfectly obvious for any programmer looking at your code, what the return value means (consider: if (gears.changeGear(20) == GearSystem::GearChangeSuccess) - much clearer what that means than the example above)
Antipattern: Failures as return codes.
The fourth possibility for a return value I actually omitted, because in my opinion it isn't any: when there's an error in your program, like a logic error or a failure that needs to be dealt with - you could theoretically return a value indicating so. But today, that's not done so often anymore (or should not be), because for that, there are exceptions.
I don't agree that methods should never return null. The most obvious examples are from systems programming. For instance, if someone asks to open a file, you simply have to give them null if the open fails. There is no sane alternative. There are other cases where null is appropriate, such as a getNextNode(node) method, when called on the last node of a linked list. So I guess what these cases have in common is that null represents "no object" (either no file handle or no list node), which makes sense.
In other cases, the method should never fail, and there is an appropriate exception facility. Then, I think method chaining like your example can be used to great effect. I think it's a bit funny that you seem to believe this is an innovation of the "Pragmatic Programmers". In fact, it dates to Lisp if not before.
Returning this is also used in the "builder pattern", another case where method chaining can enhance readability as well as writing convenience.
A null is often returned as an out-of-band value to indicate that no result could be produced. I believe that this is perfectly reasonable when getting no result is a normal event; examples would include a null return from readLine() at end-of-file, or a null returned when providing a non-existent key to the get(...) method of a Map. Reading to the end of the file is normal behavior (as opposed to an IOException, which indicates that something went abnormally wrong while trying to read). Similarly, looking up a key and being told that it has no value is a normal case.
A good alternative to null for some cases is a "null object", which is a full-fledged instance of the result class, but which has appropriate state and behavior for a "nobody's home" case. For instance, the result of looking up a non-existent user ID might well be a NullUser object which has a zero-length name and no permissions to do anything in the system.
It's confusing to me. OO programming languages need Smalltalk's semicolon:
tree color: green;
decor: gaudy;
practical: false.
obj method1; method2. means "call method1 on obj then method2 on obj". This kind of object setup is very common.