| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
I find it much simpler. It is very safe, as wszf only accepts
fixed-size arrays. There is, of course, the chance that swprintf_s
fails and writes nothing into the array. This can be handled by the
caller, if desired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The string arrays are static.
|
|
This has two benefits:
1. The for loop is avoided.
2. It is shorter.
The drawback is that it is a bit opaque. The order of the array
elements still matter, but now it is coupled to what is declared in
resource.h, a completely separate file. This makes it harder to change
resource.h.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though it is a fun challange in many ways, I think that,
realistically, it is probably not worth the complexity. The
Prolog backend isn't ANSI-compatible either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The resource IDs have been changed such that
* the first (least significant) half byte represents the "group",
* the second half byte represents the "subgroup", and
* the third and fourth half bytes uniquely identify the resource
within the group.
Combined with the use of a few helper macros, this makes the message
handling code a lot simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
See c6cd2f1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts much of 97f0a27.
1. It turns out not to be a good idea to resize the list view columns
based on the list view window's own rectangle, as it will change
depending on whether a scrollbar is visible. The problem is that
resizing the columns may add a horizontal scrollbar -- which in
turn may add a vertical scrollbar.
2. The WS_EX_CLIENTEDGE style does not look very good in "modern"
(non-classic) themes. In 97f0a27, I tried solving this by extending
the dimensions of the child windows such that their edges were
hidden. However, this type of overlapping causes problems with the
status bar. My new solution is to instead *reduce* the child
windows' dimensions. This achieves a visual impression similar to
the thicker (more well-designed) edges of the "classically themed"
list view control. To make it look even better, the main window
background is changed from COLOR_WINDOWFRAME (white) to
COLOR_WINDOW (light gray).
|
|
|
|
This incidentally removes the need for the variable
template introduced by 21e96c6. I'm sure it will be
needed at some point, though.
|
|
The variable template could be generalized like this:
template <auto F, auto... A> const auto cache = F(A...);
and instantiated like:
cache<GetSystemMetrics, SM_CXVSCROLL>
It would still be limited to constant function arguments, which
usually isn't a problem for GetSystemMetrics, but might be for
other functions.
|
|
If the main window exists, it is probably a good idea for the message
box to be owned by it. Otherwise, the user may continue to interact
with the main window. Of course, that could sometimes be a benefit,
but it SEEMS a bit unsafe... I might change this in the future.
|
|
No, not "awful", AWFUN!
Speaking of AWFUN, here is an alternative implementation of it:
#define AWFUN(t, f) cond_fun<t, f##A, f##W>
template <typename T, auto F, auto G>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_same_v<T, char>, decltype(F)> cond_fun = F;
template <auto F, auto G>
auto cond_fun<wchar_t, F, G> = G;
This implementation uses a variable template instead of a function
template, but I decided against it, as (at least I think) it would
instantiate useless variables that merely point to pre-existing API
functions. Like,
auto cond_fun__wchar_t__blablabla = MessageBoxW;
auto cond_fun__char__blablabla = MessageBoxA;
which is quite useless. Better to just have a constexpr function,
which the compiler may inline, return the real function pointer.
|
|
As the message box has no owner (because the main window may not be
initialized yet), it may be unclear which application is being
terminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In warn_nil, the return value was undefined on exception -- I think.
While informative, the names throw_nil and warn_nil don't work very
well in conditionals:
if (warn_nil<f>(...)) g();
sounds like g should be called if f returns nil and a warning is
issued. But it is actually the other way around; g is called if f is
successful.
if (prefer<f>(...)) g();
sounds less like that.
|
|
Some of the checks are likely redundant, but the Windows API
documentation rarely makes it clear WHICH errors may be returned (and
under which circumstances) rather than simply WHETHER errors may be
returned (under any circumstances, including those that do not apply
in the given case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't really more safe, but it removes the need for a confusing
function pointer cast, which is easy to get wrong. As far as the
compiler is concerned, the result is literally the same, but it does
force the caller to (indirectly, via the template parameter) cast the
return value, which may be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently, = {0} does not zero a structure in C++.
|
|
|
|
f(void) is a C-ism that is valid but unnecessary in C++.
|
|
A getter offers encapsulation, but it is also less transparent in a
sense. Thinking of ListView as a struct, it is natural to expose hWnd
as a public member variable.
|
|
|
|
It seems that "right-spaced" pointers are more widely used among C++
programmers.
|
|
Note that I did NOT add const to non-pointer/non-reference arguments
in function declarations (without a following definition), as they do
not mean anything there.
|
|
|
|
I.e. using std::basic_string<TCHAR> instead of TCHAR *. This removes
all unmanaged frees.
|
|
This avoids g_hWnd.
|