01-25-2009 03:08 PM
Could somebody describe what the problem was?
I didn't read it clearly stated but it looked (by the link to the devzone article) that the DLL is about a dialog where you can select multiple files.
Well the new (8.6?) File Dialog Express VI has an option to select multiple files.
Ton
01-25-2009
03:11 PM
- last edited on
01-26-2009
03:29 PM
by
Support
Hallo,
I'm not making no **** competition for who makes a better code.
Futher, I'm speaking about the G code size.
Don't forget that you have done in **** NET programming.
I have done in Dev-C++.
Auf wiedersehen
01-26-2009 08:33 AM
Gee, what an impressively professional response. Makes me all comfy to know that I was actually speaking with an adult. Get back to us when you grow up.
01-26-2009 08:42 AM
TonP wrote:Could somebody describe what the problem was?
I didn't read it clearly stated but it looked (by the link to the devzone article) that the DLL is about a dialog where you can select multiple files.
Well the new (8.6?) File Dialog Express VI has an option to select multiple files.
Ton
In the original post the professional, otherwise known as Weldon, provided a VI that simply called a DLL to display the Windows standard File Open and File Save dialog boxes. The poster asked specifically "If there is a better solution I'd like to know..." I took a look at the code and could not understand why the user decided to hard-code the file type selection in the DLL. The ONLY input to the DLL function was a single numerical constant to pick whether you wanted the "Open" dialog or the "Save" dialog. This meant, of course, that the code could not be reused. I presented several solutions which were, in my opinion, a far better alternative. Yours is now a fourth! Apparently, the poster seems to be in love with Dev-C++, as is evidenced by his latest response.
UPDATE: Even more amusing was that the poster initially marked the .NET solution I had presented as a accepted answer, but then apparently didn't like it when I pointed out the critical flaw in his "solution" (which he kept insisting was the best), and went back and marked his response as to where the DLL is located as the "solution"!
01-26-2009 11:12 PM