|
It seems a little confusing even looking at the MSDN documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa328748(v=VS.71).aspx[^] which says that true will delete files and subdirectories. However, when you look at the example on the same page it says:
'This operation will not be allowed because there are subdirectories.
for the VB example, and
for the C#.
I suggest you write a quick-and-dirty tester to check if the directory deleted exists after the delete, and if so what it contains. I suspect that the VB example may be correct, and you will have to manually delete files and subdirectories.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply
phiscally i checked the folder it was wmpty
and then i inserted below code in copy..
if (File.Exists(String.Format(@"{0}\{1}",unzipFolderName,zipFileitem.Name)))
{
File.Delete(String.Format(@"{0}\{1}",unzipFolderName, zipFileitem.Name));
}
shellUnZipFile.CopyHere(zipFileitem, 0);
|
|
|
|
|
Don't check using Explorer - check if it still exists after the delete in your code, and before you do anything else. (Remember that windows can have invisible files, and hidden files which won't show up in Explorer).
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
I had checked through code, explorer by making files visible and all those stuff.. 
and one more thing in this specific computer.i tried something manually..
like i right clicked the zip file and selected explore. i got an option to
copy the file But when i paste it paste is not happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you checked the folder permissions?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes i checkd.. normal settings
|
|
|
|
|
This is managed to unmanaged only!
The C code (simplified) is:
typedef INT SomeTypeArray[128];
void SomeFunction(INT *lpSomeTypeArray);
So SomeFunction can just be passed an int[] as an array is a reference type - no problem.
However, I would prefer to have a struct SomeType and another struct SomeTypeArray.
This code does all this:
public static class NativeMethods
{
[DllImport("some.dll", SetLastError = true)]
public static extern void SomeFunction(
SomeTypeArray lpSomeTypeArray);
}
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)]
public struct SomeType
{
private int value;
private SomeType(int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public static implicit operator SomeType(int value)
{
return new SomeType(value);
}
public static implicit operator int(SomeType someType)
{
return someType.value;
}
}
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)]
public struct SomeTypeArray
{
private SomeType[] someTypes;
public SomeTypeArray(params SomeType[] someTypes)
{
if (someTypes == null)
this.someTypes = new SomeType[128];
else if (someTypes.Length == 128)
this.someTypes = someTypes;
else
{
this.someTypes = new SomeType[128];
int counter = 0;
foreach (SomeType someType in someTypes)
{
this.someTypes[counter] = someType;
counter++;
if (counter == this.someTypes.Length)
break;
}
}
}
}
The problem with this is that if SomeTypeArray's default constructor is called, someTypes will be null and therefore invalid - and being a struct the default constructor can't be overloaded and field initializers outside a constructor are not allowed!
Any workaround for this or a better way of doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
I'm more than a bit confused by your code. If you want to pass a struct that contains an array, as in this native fellow:
struct myStruct {
...
int myIntegers[];
...
}
then the native side will prefer the dimension of the array to be known at compile time (so it can work out all the offsets); and the managed side must do special things to smash the array inside the struct, rather than just holding a reference. That is what
[MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.ByValArray, SizeConst=7)]
int[] myIntegers;
would do. However your code seems quite different...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Luc,
Basically, the function takes a pointer to an array of 128 ints - the size is fixed.
It's ensuring that the array is valid - i.e. not null and has 128 elements that is the problem, and I would also like to represent the array in it's own type (SomeTypeArray) as per the typedef.
|
|
|
|
|
1.
are you sure about the typedef; I'd expect typedef someDefinition someIdentifier;
2.
I'm still not with you. Could you give a full example of the C side?
|
|
|
|
|
This is the function:
void SomeFunction(INT * lpSomeTypeArray);
This is the typedef:
typedef INT SomeTypeArray[128];
I want to simulate the typedef by creating a struct - SomeTypeArry, and each element would logically be SomeType (a wrapper around int) - enforcing the 128 element size is the main problem.
How does the StructLayoutAttribute work with classes? If I could use a class then I can create my own default constructor - but then passing the class instance would result in the class instance reference being passed rather than the first field (the inner array reference type)? Just thinking out aloud here - need to investigate!
|
|
|
|
|
DaveyM69 wrote: typedef INT SomeTypeArray[128];
there are two unknown types in that statement, so something else needs to be added somewhere.
And I still think such a typedef is invalid.
PS: this would compile:
typedef struct {
int data[128];
} *ptrIntArray;
void SomeFunction(ptrIntArray *lpSomeArray);
|
|
|
|
|
It's straight out of the working header file
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like I can use [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] on a class (and therefore enforce use of my constructor) and use ([MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.LPStruct)] in the function call.
I need to test this, but it seems reasonable looking at the example here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Use classes instead of structs and make the default constructor private. By the way, when I have to use P/Invoke I always try to maintain the things as simple as possible and, in my opinion, I think you are looping the loops here. Since the C function receives an array, I would have used IntPtr type for the parameter, so I would be able to pass any array with the help of Marshal class.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to see if I can check if the credentials the user provides will be able to login to a remote machine. Right now I'm using NetUseAdd to add an IPC connection but this will give error 1219 if the credentials are cached.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, but I just saw this code and I was wondering what the difference was. The code I saw was (basically):
FontStyle style = someFont.Style;
style |= FontStyle.Italic;
How is that any different than:
FontStyle style = someFont.Style;
style = FontStyle.Italic;
|
|
|
|
|
The pipe operator (|) is a binary OR... So:
style |= FontStyle.Italic
...is equivalent to...
style = style | FontStyle.Italic
If style is initially zero, this is the same as a straight assignment (0 | x == x), but if you already have an existing value in there (Maybe 'Bold' is another value), the |= operator would make it Italic AND Bold, while an assignment would replace Bold with Italic.
(This only makes sense with flags-type enumerations, of course)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah...thanks...makes sense!
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: (This only makes sense with flags-type enumerations, of course)
That is not necessarily true.
|
|
|
|
|
Well if it's a regular enumeration (Consecutive integers), you're generally not going to be adding/removing values via bitwise operations... Sure, there could be exceptions, but I can't think of any off-hand.
|
|
|
|
|
That does make sense, depending on your meaning. If you mean this:
public enum MyEnum
{
x = 0,
a = 1,
b = 2,
c = 4,
d = 8
}
Then yeah, it works perfectly fine. If you meant this:
[Flags]
public enum MyEnum
{
x = 0,
a = 1,
b = 2,
c = 4,
d = 8
}
The "Flags" attribute is not actually necessary for the bitwise operations to be successful. It just adds intellisense and changes the behavior of ToString (e.g., it may output "a, d" rather than "9").
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. And there are also cases like:
public enum Side
{
None = 0 ,
Left = 1 ,
Right = 2 ,
Both = 3
}
where all the bases are covered and you gain nothing by using Flags.
|
|
|
|
|
I know... I meant "flags-type" as a way of describing them (Wasn't sure if he was familiar with the term "bitmask")... The attribute is just gravy.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that. Or if I did, I forgot. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
