There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least. As
I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
BACK TO _variant_t like so:
There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least.
As I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
BACK TO _variant_t like so:
Please make sure to document all of the below in a format that will ve useful to newbies coming to work on Hermes Mail. I predict a surge in interest as soon as we release a binary... and then a gradual tapering off. So let's make use of that surge while we can.
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device
From: sbrothy@users.sourceforge.net
Sent: 12 January 2019 03:05
To: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net
Reply to: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net
Subject: [hermesmail:discussion] data types - bitching
This is madness.
There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least. As
I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
BACK TO _variant_t like so:
Yeah. That's one of the reasons I dump so much crud on the list. Because to
be honest I have no time (what with all the crap I've run into. Én passant:
Also, I happen to know that Mr. MacLean is not a big fan of COM.) to write
proper documentation.
Much will be found in the code (including a ton of "//TODO: "s) and a lot
here.
<meta content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;" http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy"><style id="user-content-outgoing-font-settings">#r<br>
esponse_container_BBPPID{font-family: initial; font-size:initial; color:<br>
initial;}</style>
Please make sure to document all of the below in a format that will ve
useful to newbies coming to work on Hermes Mail. I predict a surge in
interest as soon as we release a binary... and then a gradual tapering
off. So let's make use of that surge while we can.
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device From: sbrothy@users.sourceforge.net Sent: 12 January 2019 03:05 To: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net Reply to: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net Subject:[hermesmail:discussion] data types - bitching
This is madness.
There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least. As
I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
Yeah. That's one of the reasons I dump so much crud on the list. Because
to be honest I have no time (what with all the crap I've run into. Én
passant: Also, I happen to know that Mr. MacLean is not a big fan of COM.)
to write proper documentation.
Much will be found in the code (including a ton of "//TODO: "s) and a lot
here.
<meta content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;" http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy"><style id="user-content-outgoing-font-settings">#response_container_BBPPID{font-family:<br>
initial; font-size:initial; color: initial;}</style>
Please make sure to document all of the below in a format that will ve
useful to newbies coming to work on Hermes Mail. I predict a surge in
interest as soon as we release a binary... and then a gradual tapering
off. So let's make use of that surge while we can.
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device From: sbrothy@users.sourceforge.net Sent: 12 January 2019 03:05 To: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net Reply to: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net Subject:[hermesmail:discussion] data types - bitching
This is madness.
There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least.
As
I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I
forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
Perhaps now would be a bad time to mention that I plan a migration to BitBucket in the not so near future. Code will migrate easily but the discussions will be a pain.
Not to worry; this is in the far off but only just foreseeable future. Only because I have been receiving unimaginable amounts of flak on Reddit from people who really should know better.
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device
From: sbrothy@users.sourceforge.net
Sent: 12 January 2019 05:37
To: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net
Reply to: general@discussion.hermesmail.p.re.sourceforge.net
Subject: [hermesmail:discussion] Re: data types - bitching
Putting it all together it should be possible ro extrapolate proper docs.
Yeah. That's one of the reasons I dump so much crud on the list. Because
to be honest I have no time (what with all the crap I've run into. Én
passant: Also, I happen to know that Mr. MacLean is not a big fan of COM.)
to write proper documentation.
Much will be found in the code (including a ton of "//TODO: "s) and a lot
here.
<meta content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;" http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy"><style id="outgoing-font-settings">#response_container_BBPPID{font-family:<br>
initial; font-size:initial; color: initial;}</style>
Please make sure to document all of the below in a format that will ve
useful to newbies coming to work on Hermes Mail. I predict a surge in
interest as soon as we release a binary... and then a gradual tapering
off. So let's make use of that surge while we can.
This is madness.
There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least. As
I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
BACK TO _variant_t like so:
[...]
_varian_t v (VARIANT_TRUE)
SomeFunc ( (_variant_t)(t.boolVal == VARIANT_TRUE ? true : false) ):
[...]
This works (??!!) and it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Mind you, I'm not asking anything. I'm Just bitching.
Regards,
Søren
--
Søren Bro Thygesen
Of course, and needless to say, this took me no end of grief to work out. :(
R
On Saturday, January 12, 2019, sbrothy@gmail.com wrote:
--
Søren Bro Thygesen
This is madness.
There are seemingly 3-4 variables I can choose from that can represent all
basic types:
_varian_t
VARIANT
COleVariant
CComVariant
I've been told (on MSDN Forums no less) that at least CComVariant is
compatible with MFC but, it has the same problem with booleans as the
others so in which way it's "compatible" I don't know.
Each one seems to encapsulate the one above it. To some degree at least. As
I said, for historical respons, you have to use VARIANT_TRUE and
VARIANT_FALSE to represent the built-in bool values true and false.
_varian_t sees -1 as false and 0 as true (or the other way around. I forget
right now. I'm not home.)
The madness lies in the fact that I have to test _variant_t before sending
it to CMFCPropertyGridProperty (which expects _variant_t) AND THEN CAST IT
BACK TO _variant_t like so:
[...]
_varian_t v (VARIANT_TRUE)
SomeFunc ( (_variant_t)(<wbr></wbr>t.boolVal<wbr></wbr> == VARIANT_TRUE ? true : false) ):
[...]
This works (??!!) and it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Mind you, I'm not asking anything. I'm Just bitching.
Regards,
Søren
--
Søren Bro Thygesen
data types - bitching
Sent from <wbr></wbr>sourceforge.net<wbr></wbr> because you indicated interest inhttps://sourceforge.net/p/hermesmail/discussion/general/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Yeah. That's one of the reasons I dump so much crud on the list. Because to
be honest I have no time (what with all the crap I've run into. Én passant:
Also, I happen to know that Mr. MacLean is not a big fan of COM.) to write
proper documentation.
Much will be found in the code (including a ton of "//TODO: "s) and a lot
here.
Regards.
On Saturday, January 12, 2019, Ted Matavka nmatavka@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
--
Søren Bro Thygesen
Putting it all together it should be possible ro extrapolate proper docs.
R
On Saturday, January 12, 2019, sbrothy@gmail.com wrote:
--
Søren Bro Thygesen
Putting it all together it should be possible ro extrapolate proper docs.
R
On Saturday, January 12, 2019, sbrothy@gmail.com wrote:
--
Søren Bro Thygesen
data types - bitching
Sent from <wbr></wbr>sourceforge.net<wbr></wbr> because you indicated interest inhttps://sourceforge.net/p/hermesmail/discussion/general/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/