I have created a test application and and I am invoking two COM objects from it one is Matlab application and other is Word. I am getting above error for Matlab COM and Word Com is opens without error I have already done the above changes like build for "x86", we are just porting our application to windows 7 and we are gettting this error. I got admin rights on windows 7. one info this com is present in registry

I have a code for the same. this.tree.DrawMode = TreeViewDrawMode.OwnerDrawText; this.tree.DrawNode += new DrawTreeNodeEventHandler(tree_DrawNode); void tree_DrawNode(object sender, DrawTreeNodeEventArgs e) { if (e.Node.Level == 1) HideCheckBox(e.Node); e.DrawDefault = true; } private void HideCheckBox(TreeNode node) { TVITEM tvi = new TVITEM(); tvi.hItem = node.Handle; tvi.mask = TVIF_STATE; tvi.stateMask = TVIS_STATEIMAGEMASK; tvi.state = 0; IntPtr lparam = Marshal.AllocHGlobal(Marshal.SizeOf(tvi)); Marshal.StructureToPtr(tvi, lparam, false); SendMessage(this.tree.Handle, TVM_SETITEM, IntPtr.Zero, lparam); } HTH Jinal Desai - LIVE Experience is mother of sage....

SaveTigers wrote: surprisingly isDirExist is true Directory.Exists is working as expected. You can't create a directory that ends with . (DOT) in windows. Windows will remove the dots automatically. So the function is not caring about the dots. You can do something like. string directoryToCheck = Path.GetFullPath(@"C:\CurrentDir.."); // This will trim the dots at the end bool isDirExist = Directory.Exists(directoryToCheck); // Will work as expected :) Best wishes, Navaneeth

thanks Navaneeth!

Here is your class using new syntax. #pragma once using namespace System; ref class DemoCPP { public: DemoCPP(); DemoCPP(double L, double H); ~DemoCPP(); double getLength(); void setLength(double L); double getHeight(); void setHeight(double H); void setDimensions(double L, double H); double Perimeter(); double Area(); private: double Length; double Height; }; Now compile using /clr or /clr:safe. Navaneeth How to use google | Ask smart questions

My pleasure. :) 2+2=5 for very large amounts of 2 (always loved that one hehe!)

Thanks Navaneeth for your reply !!

I completely agree with Booch. While people may use words whatever way they like as far as I'm concerned, "polymorphism" loses it's meaning if the interface changes. Technically there's no difference between methods f() and g() compared to f() and f(int). They're simply different methods. Overloads are useful, but only for the human users of the code. If I offer multiple ways to do the same thing, such as specify a timeout using either the number of milliseconds (int) or a TimeSpan, it is obviously easier for the user to cope with two methods with the same name instead of getting potentially far more method names in his intellisense list. But that is also the extent of it's usefulness - it has nada to do with polymorphism/virtual method invokation/late binding. I suppose my opinion ought to be expected if you read my entries elsewhere in this thread. :)

deep@Pune wrote: then what is the use of ref and out keyword here??? ref and out pass the reference to the reference by value :) Regards Senthil [MVP - Visual C#] _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro

amardeep deshmukh wrote: I got the workaround to this problem Very good :) The need to optimize rises from a bad design.My articles[^]