Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors.
From: Igor Tandetnik (itandetnik_at_mvps.org)
Date: 03/25/05
- Next message: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Previous message: Kim Gräsman: "Re: atlcom.h -- ATL::CComObject<Base>' : cannot instantiate abstract class"
- In reply to: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Next in thread: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Reply: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:11:17 -0500
"Ahmad Jalil Qarshi" <ahmaddearNO@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ursMToTMFHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
> error C2259: 'CComObject<class CTestLoadObj>' : cannot instantiate
> abstract class due to following members:
> c:\program files\microsoft visual
> studio\vc98\atl\include\atlcom.h(1823) : while compiling
> class-template member function 'long __stdcall ATL::CComCreator<class
> ATL::CComObject<class CTestLoadObj> >::CreateInstance(void *,const
> struct _GUID &,void ** )'
>
> could you plz tell me how to define these properties in .cpp file
> also.
> i suppose that it would be like that:
> STDMETHODIMP CTestLoadObj::get_Data(SAFEARRAY *pVal)
> {
> }
> STDMETHODIMP CTestLoadObj::put_Data(SAFEARRAY pVal)
> {
> }
A SAFEARRAY(Whatever) parameter in IDL becomes SAFEARRAY* in C++.
SAFEARRAY(Whatever)* becomes SAFEARRAY**, and so on. In other words, in
C++ you always specify one extra level of indirection compared to IDL
syntax.
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. -- RFC 1925
- Next message: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Previous message: Kim Gräsman: "Re: atlcom.h -- ATL::CComObject<Base>' : cannot instantiate abstract class"
- In reply to: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Next in thread: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Reply: Ahmad Jalil Qarshi: "Re: Problem with SAFEARRAY as property accessors."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
