Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > C call of a C# dll

Reply
Thread Tools

C call of a C# dll

 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2004
Eltee <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Eltee <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:

[...]
>>>>We were here first, by about 20 years.
>>>
>>>20? Really? I thought the Great Renaming happened in 1987. Hm.

>> Yes, really.
>> 1987 was 17 years ago, coming up on 18; that's close enough to be
>> called "about 20 years".

>
> )) That's a textbook example of something called rounding. And if
> it isn't, it should be. I'm sure if you presented this to some banker,
> you'd get a job on the spot.


What's your point? In banking, rounding $17 to $20 can get you fired
or arrested. In a casual conversation like this one, referring to a
17-year period as "about 20 years" (note that this is *explicitly* an
approximation) is perfectly appropriate, and whining about it makes
you look like a fool.

> > Aside from that, comp.lang.c is the renamed
>> version of the old net.lang.c.

>
> Yeah, sure. Just like C++ is the renamed version of C.


Not at all. comp.lang.c is, for all practical purposes, the same
newsgroup as the old net.lang.c; only the name changed. C++ is a new
and distinct language based on C. Again, what's your point? I'm
beginning to doubt that you have one.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eltee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:29:08 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>The answers came quickly enough. They just weren't what I expected.

>
>
> Thats unfortunate, but not exactly anyone here's fault.


Of course not. I never said anything like that.

>>Lurking, on the other hand, means what? A fortnight,
>>maybe a month of being passive? That's not what I'm prepared to invest in this
>>one lousy thing.

>
>
> The thing is, when that attitude becomes apparent to others, they are
> highly likely to take the same view - why should they bother to help you
> when you can't be bothered to investigate for yourself?


But I _am_ investigating. I'm not relying (only) on Usenet. It's just that I had
good experience with Usenet so far. Especially with "little" things,
directions mostly, the things that don't require knowing all the gory details of
a particular "technology".

>>Moreover, thanks to infobahn who kindly directed me to other
>>more appropriate places, I got that info very quickly.

>
>
> Good.
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eltee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>>As for lurking, if your news server keeps articles for a long time you
>>>can effectively lurk fairly quickly by skimming the saved articles.
>>>Failing that, groups.google.com is a good substitute.

>>
>>Not only the groups, the whole google. Don't think I haven't tried there first.

>
>
> Then you need to brush up your google skills


Perhaps.

> - I got about 100 useful hits
> in 0.24 seconds.


That's what I'm talking about. What would it take for you to just post that info
here? Do you want me to beg for it?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eltee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Eltee <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>Eltee <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>
> [...]
>
>>>>>We were here first, by about 20 years.
>>>>
>>>>20? Really? I thought the Great Renaming happened in 1987. Hm.
>>>
>>>Yes, really.
>>>1987 was 17 years ago, coming up on 18; that's close enough to be
>>>called "about 20 years".

>>
>>)) That's a textbook example of something called rounding. And if
>>it isn't, it should be. I'm sure if you presented this to some banker,
>>you'd get a job on the spot.

>
>
> What's your point? In banking, rounding $17 to $20 can get you fired
> or arrested. In a casual conversation like this one, referring to a
> 17-year period as "about 20 years" (note that this is *explicitly* an
> approximation) is perfectly appropriate, and whining about it makes
> you look like a fool.


A quote from the clc welcome message:

Accuracy is valued very highly in this
newsgroup; therefore posts are frequently corrected, sometimes perhaps
too harshly, and often to the annoyance of new posters who consider the
correction trivial. Do not take it personally;

So, now, which is it? Accurate or casual? Looks like it's both: accurate when
you have to bash somebody else for their casualness and casual when you want to
bash them for their accuracy.

>> > Aside from that, comp.lang.c is the renamed

>>
>>>version of the old net.lang.c.

>>
>>Yeah, sure. Just like C++ is the renamed version of C.

>
>
> Not at all. comp.lang.c is, for all practical purposes, the same
> newsgroup as the old net.lang.c; only the name changed. C++ is a new
> and distinct language based on C. Again, what's your point? I'm
> beginning to doubt that you have one.


My point is that for all practical purposes, C and C++ are strongly related (to
put it mildly). And for all practical purposes, loading a shared library is on
the menu of every decent programmer. So, for all practical purposes, that makes
it, de facto, a part of the language. I'm using "a part of" _casualy_, of course.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
Eltee <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Eltee <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

[Silly argument regarding "about 20 years" vs. "17 years" snipped]
> A quote from the clc welcome message:
>
> Accuracy is valued very highly in this
> newsgroup; therefore posts are frequently corrected, sometimes perhaps
> too harshly, and often to the annoyance of new posters who consider the
> correction trivial. Do not take it personally;
>
> So, now, which is it? Accurate or casual? Looks like it's both:
> accurate when you have to bash somebody else for their casualness and
> casual when you want to bash them for their accuracy.


There is nothing incorrect about referring to a period of 17 years as
"about 20 years". It was less precise than the kind of wording you
might expect in, say, a language standard, but it was as precise as it
needed to be in context. The point would have been equally valid if
the time period in question were 10 years or 30 years.

This is the last thing I'm going to say about it.

>>> > Aside from that, comp.lang.c is the renamed
>>>
>>>>version of the old net.lang.c.
>>>
>>>Yeah, sure. Just like C++ is the renamed version of C.

>> Not at all. comp.lang.c is, for all practical purposes, the same
>> newsgroup as the old net.lang.c; only the name changed. C++ is a new
>> and distinct language based on C. Again, what's your point? I'm
>> beginning to doubt that you have one.

>
> My point is that for all practical purposes, C and C++ are strongly
> related (to put it mildly).


Yes, C and C++ are strongly related. but they are two distinct
languages. Questions about C++ are unquestionably off-topic here in
comp.lang.c; that's why comp.lang.c++ exists.

> And for all practical purposes, loading a
> shared library is on the menu of every decent programmer.


Perhaps. Personally, I rarely deal explicitly with shared libraries;
I leave that to the operating system.

> So, for all
> practical purposes, that makes it, de facto, a part of the
> language. I'm using "a part of" _casualy_, of course.


No, it's not part of the language, it's a feature of the
implementation. We've been telling you for days that your question is
off-topic. Personally, I have no idea what the answer is. It's
likely you could get the information you're looking for in a
Windows-specific newsgroup, either one of the comp.os.ms-windows.*
groups or one of Microsoft's own microsoft.* groups. Have you tried?

Note that I'm not complaining about your original post. It's not
immediately obvious that a question about calling C# from C is
off-topic in comp.lang.c. But now you know that it is.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:38:56 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>And for all practical purposes, loading a shared library is on
>the menu of every decent programmer.


No its not. I can't remember the last time I had to care about loading
shared libraries. Your OS should take care of that sort of nonsense for
you.

>So, for all practical purposes, that makes
>it, de facto, a part of the language.


No, because the langauage is defined by an international standard,.

>I'm using "a part of" _casualy_, of course.


Be as casual as you like but don't expect anyone to help you much.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jarno A Wuolijoki
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Eltee wrote:

> Keith Thompson wrote:
> >
> > What's your point? In banking, rounding $17 to $20 can get you fired
> > or arrested. In a casual conversation like this one, referring to a
> > 17-year period as "about 20 years" (note that this is *explicitly* an
> > approximation) is perfectly appropriate, and whining about it makes
> > you look like a fool.

>
> A quote from the clc welcome message:
>
> Accuracy is valued very highly in this
> newsgroup; therefore posts are frequently corrected, sometimes perhaps
> too harshly, and often to the annoyance of new posters who consider the
> correction trivial. Do not take it personally;
>
> So, now, which is it? Accurate or casual? Looks like it's both: accurate when
> you have to bash somebody else for their casualness and casual when you want
> to bash them for their accuracy.


Let me guess, you don't work much with floating point?
 
Reply With Quote
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2005
"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" wrote:
>
> You can register the .NET class as a COM class (see regasm.exe)
> and use CoCreateInstance and friends to call it - you can create
> a typelib for your assembly using tlbexp.exe

.... snip ...
>
> Is it possible to
> 1. call a function from a dll made with .NET (C#)
> 2. from a program written in plain (as in: not .NET) C or C++?


This is way off-topic for c.l.c. Portable C code knows nothing
about classes, typelibs, dlls, .NET, etc. c.l.c deals only with
portable code that can execute on any system with a standards
compliant compiler system. F'ups set.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Second long argument to a JNI call on a Win32 DLL contains zero when it reaches the DLL pcarr01 Java 3 02-17-2005 09:30 AM
How to determine if a DLL is a COM DLL or .NET DLL Anushi ASP .Net 5 10-28-2004 01:59 PM
Why does Ruby use both tcl83.dll and tk83.dll (instead of just tk83.dll)? H. Simpson Ruby 4 08-03-2004 04:45 PM
mprapi.dll --> samlib.dll --> ntdll.dll issue. Some1 Computer Support 4 04-05-2004 02:02 AM
msvcrt.dll, msvcirt.dll, msvcrt20.dll and msvcrt40.dll, explanation please! Snoopy NZ Computing 16 08-25-2003 12:34 PM



Advertisments