C call of a C# dll

[Eltee]

Hi everybody,

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++?

To be more specific, this is what I have.

1.
C# file Class.cs:

using System; //and some other packages

namespace myns
{
public class Class
{
public Class()
{
}

public static byte[] getByteArray(
string name,
int index,
string format,
ref int n
) {
//Code returning some byte array.
}
}
}

Compiling it, I get myns.dll.

2.
C file mycaller.c:

#include <windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include "mycaller.h"

typedef byte* (*FunctionPointer)(char*, int, char*, int*);

#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif

byte* myfunc() {

//load the library
HINSTANCE m_libraryHandle = LoadLibrary("myns.dll");
if(m_libraryHandle != NULL) {
printf("Library loaded\n");
}
else {
printf("Library not loaded\n");
return NULL;
}

byte* result = NULL;

//get the function pointer
FunctionPointer functionptr =
(FunctionPointer)GetProcAddress(m_libraryHandle,
"getByteArray");

if(functionptr != NULL) {
printf("Function pointer is OK\n");

int n = -1;
//call the function from the loaded library
result = (*functionptr)("fubar1", 0, "fubar2", &n);

//some code modifying the result
}
else {
printf("Function pointer is NULL\n");
}

//free the library
FreeLibrary(m_libraryHandle);
printf("Library freed\n");

return result;
};

#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif

Now, the problem. Library gets loaded but the function pointer is
allways NULL.

1. Should the method call getByteArray() in Class.cs be "externalized"
somehow
in order for the call to be successful? If so, how do I "externalize" it?

2. Is the name of the function in GetProcAddress() wrong? Should I put the
namespace (myns) and class name (Class) in front of the method name? If
so, how
(I mean what delimiters do I use)?

3. Something else?

All help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[Eltee]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I meant the dll in the C code.

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

[Eltee]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:10:09 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Then, to avoid confusion, you should rename your (sic!) NG
comp.lang.pure.c, comp.lang.1990iso.c, comp.lang.1999iso.c or
comp.lang.kr.c. ;-)

We were here first, by about 20 years.

20? Really? I thought the Great Renaming happened in 1987. Hm.

Otherwise guys like me will bother you with OT
questions all the time.

Only if you fail to follow nettiquette and don't lurk,

I can't afford to lurk. I need the info _now_. Yesterday, in fact.

[Lawrence Kirby]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:22 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I meant the dll in the C code.

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

Those have nothing to do with C either.

Lawrence

[infobahn]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct,
Not so.
and nothing to do with C.

So. :-)

[infobahn]

Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I meant the dll in the C code.

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

No, C doesn't define shared objects either.

[Eltee]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:22 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I meant the dll in the C code.
But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

Those have nothing to do with C either.

Not in theory, no. But how can you live without them in the real world? I mean,
some orthodox biologist might say that pumping air into your lungs has nothing
to do with breathing, which, as we all know, happens at chemical level inside
your cells, but... BUT! ;-) If you're so strict in your understanding of the
"definition" of C then this whole c.l.c. business is just academic, right?

[infobahn]

Eltee wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:22 +0100, Eltee wrote:

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

Those have nothing to do with C either.

Not in theory, no. But how can you live without them in the real world?

Some people do in fact manage without them, but nobody would deny their
importance. Nevertheless, we don't discuss them here. That doesn't stop
us discussing them elsewhere, in newsgroups where such things are
topical.

[Lawrence Kirby]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:41:29 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:10:09 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
Only if you fail to follow nettiquette and don't lurk,

I can't afford to lurk. I need the info _now_. Yesterday, in fact.

Then Usenet isn't the appropriate medium for your question.

Lawrence

[Lawrence Kirby]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:25:13 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:22 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:
>I meant the dll in the C code.
But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

Those have nothing to do with C either.

Not in theory, no. But how can you live without them in the real world? I mean,
some orthodox biologist might say that pumping air into your lungs has nothing
to do with breathing, which, as we all know, happens at chemical level inside
your cells, but... BUT! ;-)

Do you mean breathing or respiration?
If you're so strict in your understanding of the
"definition" of C then this whole c.l.c. business is just academic, right?

The group is focussed, but that doesn't make it academic. A language like
C should allow me to write code that does something without
worrying about exactly what compiler I am using and other
implementation details. It can, and a great deal of useful code
can be written in that light. If you know what things you can rely on
irrespective of platform you are a long way to being able to program on
Windows, Unix, Macs, or a system you never heard of before but which has a
C compiler. You can argue that languages like Java take this further,
maybe C# could if it was implemented more widely. But C offers a lot in
that respect too.

Lawrence

[Martin Ambuhl]

Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I meant the dll in the C code.

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

No, you silly twit. Where did you get such a stupid idea?

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:22 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I meant the dll in the C code.

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

What makes you think some unix-sounding thing is any more ontopic?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:25:13 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:22 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:
>I meant the dll in the C code.
But DLLs are a windows-specific construct, and nothing to do with C.

But if they're called shared objects (so's) then that's OK, right?

Those have nothing to do with C either.

Not in theory, no. But how can you live without them in the real world?

How the implementation provides services is immaterial to any decent C
programme. It can use shared objects, dynamic linking or carrier pigeon.

And if you're talking about writing your own shared code, C again doesn't
care - as long as you can link with the function somehow.
your cells, but... BUT! ;-) If you're so strict in your understanding of the
"definition" of C then this whole c.l.c. business is just academic, right?

Only if you're the sort of person who thinks its ok to intermingle
database, UI and programme code in one function.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:48:10 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , infobahn
<in******@btinternet.com> wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

But DLLs are a windows-specific construct,

Not so.

Maybe, maybe not. Its offtopic here tho.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:41:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

We were here first, by about 20 years.

20? Really? I thought the Great Renaming happened in 1987. Hm.

comp.lang.c was in existence before the Great Renaming. Its name changed,
but thats all.

Only if you fail to follow nettiquette and don't lurk,

I can't afford to lurk. I need the info _now_. Yesterday, in fact.

Then you're a complete idiot asking in usenet. This isn't instant
messaging, and if you want quick answers, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Go hire some consultants. :-)
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith Thompson]

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:10:09 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Then, to avoid confusion, you should rename your (sic!) NG
comp.lang.pure.c, comp.lang.1990iso.c, comp.lang.1999iso.c or
comp.lang.kr.c. ;-)

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". Aside from that, comp.lang.c is the renamed
version of the old net.lang.c. I think net.lang.c was one of the
earliest newsgroups.

Otherwise guys like me will bother you with OT questions all the
time.

Only if you fail to follow nettiquette and don't lurk,

I can't afford to lurk. I need the info _now_. Yesterday, in fact.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that. If you need it yesterday, I'm afraid
you're too late. But you should seriously consider a different source
of information (possibly one costing money), since Usenet is not
designed to guarantee quick responses, and being upset with us for not
jumping to serve you is going to be counterproductive.

The urgency of your need for information does not imply an urgency on
our part to give it to you. We do this for fun; we're not customer
service.

But perhaps your need isn't quite as urgent as you seem to think it
is. If it were, you probably wouldn't have enough spare time on your
hands to come here and offer advice on how we should run our
newsgroup. (I use the term "our" loosely; comp.lang.c isn't anyone's
property, but those of us who have been regulars here for a long time
tend to feel some sense of responsibility for it.)

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.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <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.

[Eltee]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

Then Usenet isn't the appropriate medium for your question.

Yes, so I gather.

[Eltee]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I can't afford to lurk. I need the info _now_. Yesterday, in fact.

Then you're a complete idiot asking in usenet. This isn't instant
messaging, and if you want quick answers, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Go hire some consultants. :-)

No, no, don't misunderstand me. The answers came quickly enough. They just
weren't what I expected. 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. Moreover, thanks to infobahn who kindly directed me to other
more appropriate places, I got that info very quickly.

[Eltee]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:10:09 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Then, to avoid confusion, you should rename your (sic!) NG
comp.lang.pure.c, comp.lang.1990iso.c, comp.lang.1999iso.c or
comp.lang.kr.c. ;-)

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.

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.
I think net.lang.c was one of the
earliest newsgroups.

Otherwise guys like me will bother you with OT questions all the
time.

Only if you fail to follow nettiquette and don't lurk,
I can't afford to lurk. I need the info _now_. Yesterday, in fact.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that. If you need it yesterday, I'm afraid
you're too late. But you should seriously consider a different source
of information (possibly one costing money), since Usenet is not
designed to guarantee quick responses, and being upset with us for not
jumping to serve you is going to be counterproductive.

The urgency of your need for information does not imply an urgency on
our part to give it to you. We do this for fun; we're not customer
service.

But perhaps your need isn't quite as urgent as you seem to think it
is. If it were, you probably wouldn't have enough spare time on your
hands to come here and offer advice on how we should run our
newsgroup. (I use the term "our" loosely;

No kidding?!? ;-)
comp.lang.c isn't anyone's
property, but those of us who have been regulars here for a long time
tend to feel some sense of responsibility for it.)

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.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:29:08 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

The answers came quickly enough. They just weren't what I expected.
Thats unfortunate, but not exactly anyone here's fault.
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?
Moreover, thanks to infobahn who kindly directed me to other
more appropriate places, I got that info very quickly.

Good.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:34:39 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

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.

No, just like net.lang.c was renamed comp.lang.c during the great renaming.

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 - I got about 100 useful hits
in 0.24 seconds.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith Thompson]

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Keith Thompson wrote:

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> 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) ks***@mib.org <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.

[Eltee]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:29:08 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> 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.

[Eltee]

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?

[Eltee]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Keith Thompson wrote:

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> 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.

[Keith Thompson]

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Keith Thompson wrote:

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> 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) ks***@mib.org <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.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:38:56 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> 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>

[Jarno A Wuolijoki]

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? ;)

[CBFalconer]

"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