“Using SDK-Based Development” explains how to use weakly linked classes, methods, and functions ...
I have used this e.g.
if ([NSByteCountFormatter class]) {
...
}
Is there any way to detect supported options e.g.
NSRegularExpressionSearch
The search string is treated as an ICU-compatible regular expression.
If set, no other options can apply except NSCaseInsensitiveSearch and NSAnchoredSearch.
You can use this option only with the rangeOfString:... methods and stringByReplacingOccurrencesOfString:withString:options:range:.
Available in OS X v10.7 and later.
For testing whether a class, e.g. NSUserNotificationCenter, exists, do
if(NSClassFromString(#"NSUserNotificationCenter"))
{
//...
}
For testing whether a constant, e.g. NSWindowDidChangeBackingPropertiesNotification, exists, do
BOOL NSWindowDidChangeBackingPropertiesNotificationIsAvailable = (&NSWindowDidChangeBackingPropertiesNotification != NULL);
if (NSWindowDidChangeBackingPropertiesNotificationIsAvailable)
{
//...
}
Check out this answer also: Check if constant is defined at runtime in Obj-C
In your case, this looks like
BOOL NSRegularExpressionSearchIsAvailable = (&NSRegularExpressionSearch != NULL);
if (NSRegularExpressionSearchIsAvailable)
{
//...
}
Related
How can I know that for a particular ComboBox which Dialog Style is being used? Is there any Win32 API which can give me that information?
I am using CDialog for a few ComboBox, CDialogEx for some, and an in-house Dialog class, let's say Ctl3dDialogEx, for others. GetClassName() will return the Class name of the ComboBox (if I am passing a ComboBox Handler) which can be "CComboBox".
Is there any Win32 API where I will pass the ComboBox Handler and it will return back to me the Dialog class name, for eg : "CDialog", "CDialogEx", "Ctl3dDialogEx", etc?
Below code will help to understand maybe:
void ComboBox_DoSomeManipulation( HWND hldg , int n )
{
/*"hldg" is the handler of the Current ComBobox */
LPTSTR lpClassName;
int nMaxCount = 256;
/*This will return "CComboBox" as value in lpClassName */
GetClassName(hldg , lpClassName , _count_of(nMaxCount));
/*Is there any WIN API like above which can give */
/* Dialog class information like CDialog, CDialogEx */
/* which the ComboBox is using ? */
}
If your combo-box can somehow get hold of a genuine pointer to its parent window, then you can use dynamic_cast<CDialogEx*>(pParent) to see if it's CDialogEx (returns nullptr if not). You will need several separate checks, starting from the most derived class! So, if your Ctl3dDialogEx is derived from CDialogEx, then:
. . .
CWnd *pParent = pCombo->GetParent(); // This, as is, is not valid code!
if (dynamic_cast<Ctl3dDialogEx*>(pParent) != nullptr) {
// It's a Ctl3dDialogEx parent
}
else if (dynamic_cast<CDialogEx*>(pParent) != nullptr) {
// It's a CDialogEx
}
else { // Assuming no other options …
// It's a CDialog
}
I would recommend making an accessible (static?) copy of the parent window's this pointer during initialisation, if you can. But there are other ways …
For example, assuming you have control over the definition of ComboBox_DoSomeManipulation and when it's called, change the first argument from an HWND to a CWnd* and, when you call it, use this rather than this->m_hwnd. (But this depends on the structure of your code!)
There is no Windows API help since all those dialogs will be subclassing the Windows DIALOG class. If this is all in process, and you are using the same MFC instance, you might be able to do this:
CWnd* pWnd = CWnd::FromHandlePermanent(hdlg);
if (pWnd != NULL)
{
if (pWnd->GetRuntimeClass() == RUNTIME_CLASS(CDialog))
{
}
else if (pWnd->GetRuntimeClass() == RUNTIME_CLASS(CDialogEx))
{
}
else if (pWnd->GetRuntimeClass() == RUNTIME_CLASS(CDialogxyz))
{
}
}
Back in the old days, MS compilers used with MFC didn't play well with dynamic_cast<>, so generally, when using MFC, I don't use it. I probably should have more trust in it, but I was stuck using Visual C++ 6 until 2008, so I am probably a little jaded. The more "standard" "MFC way" is to use the MFC macros...
Another possible ways is something like:
if (CDialogxyz* pDlgxyz = DYNAMIC_DOWNCAST(CDialogxyz, pWnd))
{
}
else if (CDialogEx* pDlgEx = DYNAMIC_DOWNCAST(CDialogEx, pWnd))
{
}
else if (CDialog* pDlg = DYNAMIC_DOWNCAST(CDialog, pWnd))
{
}
I have a enum, SDKEnum which I need to convert into a AppEnum. I need to convert it, since my project shall be a wrapper around a .NET SDK and I cannot publish internal enums of that SDK. So I need to write my "own".
Now, for every enum I have I need a method that does the following:
AppEnum GetAppEnum (SDKEnum type)
{
switch (type)
{
// Return the correct constant, since AppEnum and SDKEnum have equal constants
}
}
That way I put a SDK enum into that method and get the corresponding App enum back.
I dont want to write that method for each enum I have.. . Is there a more generic or better way of doing this?
I'm pretty new to C++/CLI / C++ coming from C#.
Thanks a lot!
I don't know how these enums are defined, but most likely they are either (old) C-style enums or (since C++11) strongly-typed enum classes.
The following code compiles, thus static_cast is your friend here:
namespace
{
enum OLD_ENUM1 { A=1,B=2};
enum OLD_ENUM2 { C=1,D=2};
enum class NEW_ENUM1 { A=1,B=2};
enum class NEW_ENUM2 { A=1,B=2};
}
int main()
{
OLD_ENUM1 o1(A);
OLD_ENUM2 o2(static_cast<OLD_ENUM2>(o1));
NEW_ENUM1 n1(NEW_ENUM1::A);
NEW_ENUM2 n2(static_cast<NEW_ENUM2>(n1));
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Note that for OLD_ENUM1 and OLD_ENUM2, I cannot use the same names for the enumeration values, since they are addressed without namespace. For the strongly-typed enums, I can do that because since they are classes, they have their own namespaces.
Alright, so what did the trick was the following regular cast:
enum SDKEnum
{
One, // (2)
Two, // (1)
Three // (0)
}
enum AppEnum
{
One,
Two,
Three
}
AppEnum MethoThatNeededTheConversion(SDKEnum sdkenum)
{
// DoStuff
return static_cast<AppEnum>(sdkenum); // Wrong int values returned
}
Important to note for me was:
The SDKEnum had other integer values for the constants then my AppEnum. So I created a test application and gave out those integer values so I can sync both enums and use regular cast.
Thanks for the help #all
I have built a custom msbuild task that I use to convert 3D models in the format I use in my engine. However there are some optional behaviours that I would like to provide. For example allowing the user to choose whether to compute the tangent array or not, whether to reverse the winding order of the indices, etc.
In the actual UI where you select the Build action for each file, is it possible to define custom fields that would then be fed to the input parameters of the task? Such as a "Compute Tangents" dropbox where you can choose True or False?
If that is possible, how? Are there any alternatives besides defining multiple tasks? I.e. ConvertModelTask, ConvertModelComputeTangentTask, ConvertModelReverseIndicesTask, etc.
Everything in a MsBuild Custom Task, has to have "settable properties" to drive behavior.
Option 1.
Define an ENUM-esque to drive you behavior.
From memory, the MSBuild.ExtensionPack.tasks and MSBuild.ExtensionPack.Xml.XmlFile TaskAction="ReadElementText" does this type of thing.
The "TaskAction" is the enum-esque thing. I say "esque", because all you can do on the outside is set a string. and then in the code, convert the string to an internal enum.
See code here:
http://searchcode.com/codesearch/view/14325280
Option 2: You can still use OO on the tasks. Create a BaseTask (abstract) for shared logic), and then subclass it, and make the other class a subclass, and the msbuild task that you call.
SvnExport does this. SvnClient is the base class. And it has several subclasses.
See code here:
https://github.com/loresoft/msbuildtasks/blob/master/Source/MSBuild.Community.Tasks/Subversion/SvnExport.cs
You can probably dive deep with EnvDTE or UITypeEditor but since you already have a custom task why not keep it simple with a basic WinForm?
namespace ClassLibrary1
{
public class Class1 : Task
{
public bool ComputeTangents { set { _computeTangents = value; } }
private bool? _computeTangents;
public override bool Execute()
{
if (!_computeTangents.HasValue)
using (var form1 = new Form1())
{
form1.ShowDialog();
_computeTangents = form1.checkBox1.Checked;
}
Log.LogMessage("Compute Tangents: {0}", _computeTangents.Value);
return !Log.HasLoggedErrors;
}
}
}
I've just modified a method for handling my DDD commands (previously it had no return type):
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand, TReturn>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
The method is fine, and does what I want it to do, however using it creates some fugly code:
CommandResult<Customer> result =
DomainCommands.Execute<CustomerCreateCommand, Customer>
(
new CustomerCreateCommand(message)
);
Before I added the Customer return type TReturn, it was nice and tidy and the method could infer the types from its usage. However that's no longer possible.
Is there any way using any new C# features that I could rewrite the above to make it tidier, i.e. using Func, Action, Expression, etc? I'm probably expecting the impossible, but I'm getting fed up of writing so much code to just call a single method that used to be very simple.
One option to reduce it slightly is to have a static generic type for the type parameter that can't be inferred, allowing you to have a generic method with just one type parameter that can be inferred:
public static class DomainCommands<TReturn>
{
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
}
Then:
var result = DomainCommands<Customer>.Execute(new CustomerCreateCommand(msg));
It's not much nicer, but it's slightly better. Of course, if the domain command type itself could be generic, that might help - so CustomerCreateCommand would implement IDomainCommand<Customer> for example. If you still needed a nongeneric IDomainCommand, you could make IDomainCommand<T> derive from IDomainCommand.
I see a lot of legacy .Net 1.1-style code at work like in example below, which I would like to shrink with the help of an auto-property. This will help many classes shrink by 30-40%, which I think would be good.
public int MyIntThingy
{
get
{
return _myIntThingy;
}
set
{
_myIntThingy = value;
}
} private int _myIntThingy = -1;
This would become:
public int MyIntThingy
{
get;
set;
}
And the only question is - where do I set MyIntThingy = -1;?
If I wrote the class from the start, then I would have a better idea, but I did not. An obvious answer would be: put it in the constructor. Trouble is: there are many constructors in this class. Watching the initialization to -1 in the debugger, I see it happen (I believe) before the constructor gets called. It is almost as if I need to use a static constructor as described here:
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/uploadfile/cupadhyay/staticconstructors11092005061428am/staticconstructors.aspx
except that my variables are not static. Java's static initializer comes to mind, but again - my variables are not static. http://www.glenmccl.com/tip_003.htm
I want to make stylistic but not functional changes to this class. As crappy as it is, it has been tested and working for a few years now. breaking the functionality would be bad. So ... I am looking for shorter, sweeter, cuter, and yet EQUIVALENT code. Let me know if you have questions.
I'm afraid that you have no option.
If you want to use an auto-property with an initial value that differs from the type's default value then you'll need to set the initial value in the constructor(s).
If you just need a stylistic, non-breaking change, consider changing the format a little:
public int MyIntThingy
{
get { return _myIntThingy; }
set { _myIntThingy = value; }
}
private int _myIntThingy = -1;
Isn't that prettier?
And consider using auto-properties for future code only. It sounds too risky to use them on existing code, unless there are no default values.