![borland c++ time(null) borland c++ time(null)](https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image/28d0c4cdceceff368cef71fe3807c2ef/image-28.jpg)
I used VC++ 6 to create the program, and while I've a half dozen other compilers, I've only tested it in VC6. Printf("%u\t\t\t%u\t\t\t%c\t\t%u\n",key.blnKeyPressed,key.blnExtended,key.ch,key.code) Printf("key.blnKeyPressed\tkey.blnExtended\t\tkey.ch\t\de\n") K.blnExtended=false, k.blnKeyPressed=true K.blnExtended=true, k.blnKeyPressed=true Here is my Inkey function which gets passed by reference a KEY struct. So what I did was create a typedef like so.
#Borland c++ time(null) code
Therefore, I wasn't able to return a string from my string class that has a null as the first character, and the extended character code in the 2nd byte (cursor motion keys and so forth). I have my own string class, but it isn't based on Ole strings, but rather on Asciiz null terminated strings, and as such I can't embed nulls in the string. The Inkey$ function returns a dynamic basic string (allocated by the OLE String Engine). My intention was to make it exact, but I ran into some excrutiating problems. I put together a C++ version of the basic Inkey function. Inp=c // CHR$ from ASCII if extended, c=0 ASCII-getche ASCII from keypressĬout << "\n\n\n\n\n\tThis program produces ASCII code for any key pressed." Ĭout << "\n\n\n\n\n\tChar : " << inp << " ASCII: " << c <<"\n\n\n\tEsc to Exit,\tPresskey a key: " And the cursor can move from field to field, and page to page using extended keys mentioned above.
![borland c++ time(null) borland c++ time(null)](https://nullprogram.com/img/win98/ide.png)
![borland c++ time(null) borland c++ time(null)](https://www.thecrazyprogrammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/TCP-IP-Socket-Programming-Client-and-Server.jpg)
Ultimately, it is hoped that extended ASCII codes produced by pressing those Up, Dn, Left, Right, PgUp and PgDn keys could be used for data entry where Input type could be predetermined, and user is pre-empted from making errors before confirming with the Enter key. There is an intention to develop functions to make C++ programs more user-friendly. I also believe in Karma and that what goes around, comes around. I believe that the time a self-taught person take to learn C++ programming or any other skills in isolation would range from 3 X more to infinity - which means not in a lifetime - more compared with a person lucky to be pointed the right direction by a good and knowledgeable mentor, ceteris paribus.
#Borland c++ time(null) how to
It looks like a simple assignment of a character variable to NULL, for those familiar with other high level computer languages but i have not figured out how to do it in C++ yet.
![borland c++ time(null) borland c++ time(null)](https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/KYqERTC4tvdrhp0NTexN5DfZmHs=/400x225/smart/filters:no_upscale()/1-58babfca5f9b58af5cb43c52.gif)
So, I have used inp=NULL, and was let off with a warning, and compiling could be completed, and the program could run.īut, that line inp=NULL had been ignored on execution of the program. In the C++ codes below, I have remarked out // inp="", otherwise it would cause compiling to fail. Now, coming back to the main purpose of this thread, as shown in the title. However, I have also discovered out that Borland has bad habits, being sometimes unpredictable and infested with bugs, and failing to compile on bug-free codes with the message "External errors" and could even tolerate the "Wrong thing" in compiling C++ codes with Void main(void), without any complaint, which I found to be like mixing with the wrong company. Perhaps, it can coexist with CODE::BLOCK, playing a different role, perhaps for lookup on explanation and usage of keywords, etc. So, Borland need not be discarded, since its help is handily available. In this respect, it is less user-friendly than Borland. Then I realized that I should not have abandoned Borland, recalling fond memories that when you highlighted a C++ keyword, and pressed F1, you could get help readily, c/w explanations and examples of usage. In the working program produced below, CODE::BLOCK gave out an error message and failed to compile the original codes, where I used Void main(void) in the main function it was adamant that it would only accept int main(void). After a brief and rocky relation, I have had jilted Borland 5.02 and found new love for CODE::BLOCK only to discover a while ago that Borland could compile a code snippet which CODE::BLOCK couldn't.