dll features

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:03 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by stfighter.

Hi, badly need support for floats or double as result of the callfunction command.

i can do NOTHING with dlls, without a good support of all standart datatypes.

hopfully stfighter

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:28 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by dmoc.

Do a search here on "BigNumbers"

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 7:04 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by stfighter.

ok it is possible, but this is not an acceptable solution for the future.

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 7:18 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by dmoc.

Correct but the point has been made several times and just recently again. I think Fred is planning to support floats/doubles sometime soon.

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:40 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by dmoc

Correct but the point has been made several times and just recently again. I think Fred is planning to support floats/doubles sometime soon.

Floats are supported, doubles are not.

Unless the original question was about getting a float as a return value from a DLL call using CallFunction (which IIRC returns a long). In that case, stfighter could do something like:

foo.f
result.l = CallFunction(...)
PokeL(@foo, result)

But I am not sure how well this would work (or if it would).

--
It's not minimalist - I'm increasing efficiency by reducing input effort.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.51)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:13 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Why not use PeekF() ?
Foo.f = PeekF(@Result)

Fred - AlphaSND

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:00 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by fred

Why not use PeekF() ?

Because I'm a fool and forgot that it existed

--
It's not minimalist - I'm increasing efficiency by reducing input effort.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.51)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:33 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Excellent reason

.

Fred - AlphaSND

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:23 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by stfighter.

yes, this was the solution i called unacceptable.

to make that work i have to change all return values to pointers.
all comfort is getting lost and most of people wont understand how to use this dll then.
and it is much work too.

stfighter