Unfortunately, there are no direct macro equivalents in C#. However, you might find some alterantives here with StackFrame or StackTrace (Debug): http://www.dotnet247.com/247reference/msgs/1/8826.aspx[^] HossFly

I'm not an install expert, but here's a few suggestions on [1] ... Could you use the windir environment variable? Instead of hard-coding the drive, do something like this: cd %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727 Most cusotm installers have logic similar to this: svDotNetDir = WINDIR ^ "Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727"; if (FindFile (svDotNetDir, "RegAsm.exe", svResult) < 0) then ... Do something here ... Wished I could be of more help. I hope someone else posts a complete solution. HossFly

I am interested in designing a custom Form skin. I have seen several articles in the Code Project concerning the use of the skin, but I haven't seen much concerning the tools and techniques to make a good skin. Thanks in advance for your help. HossFly

You made my point for me. You shouldn't use recursion if you do not know the recursion depth. Whereas with a stack it is never an issue. I can describe many a problem where one cannot KNOW the recursion depth in advance (Flood Fill, Point Insertion w/r to Triangulation, clipping, etc...) I have fixed recurssion based algorithms in two commercial products. The crashes this type of logic causes is often very difficult to catch. Try finding it in millions of lines of code and you will have the same opinion. It is probably ok for some text book or academic problems. problem is developers fail to realize the stack problem and take the easy approach. I advocate thinking stack first, and recursion second (or last resort, or never.) HossFly

Recursion is a bad thing. You can almost always remove recursion from an algorithm using a simple stack. Case in point, you can remove recursion from the suggested algorithm with a stack. Something like this: 1 on Stack 5 on Stack 19 on Stack Start popping -> 1,5,19 19 on Stack 5 on Stack Start popping -> 1,19,5 etc ... HossFly

Alright, we are getting closer. The next suggested steps would be: Problem3: [1] Assume nominal flange depth and pounds per foot are fixed. [2] Assume there are only only non-standard sizes. Problem4: [1] Assume nominal flange depth and pounds per foot are fixed. [2] Assume there is one standard size (e.g., 30') and non-standard sizes. After you solve Problem4 you will then have unraveled another aspect of your algortihm (how the standard and non-standard sizes impact the logic.) The big picture ... I have often been in need of a niche-like algorithm similar in complexity to yours. I cannot count the times I have been frustratingly lost and on my own as well. My intent was not to give you fish, but rather share with you how I have caught several fish. You have used that now to (almost) catch your own fish, and that is very rewarding. Sometimes you may not catch your fish, but by applying good problem solving skills (e.g., break down, relaxing conditions, combining sub-optimal sub-solutions, etc...), you gain the knowledge and understanding needed to realize what aspect of someone else's solution might work for you. You will soon have your own algorithm. Not only that, you will have a deeper understanding of the mechanics of your problem. Having an algorithm is one thing - an optimal algorithm is another. Being able to analyze optimality requires intimacy with the problem. You are gaining this intimacy as well. The standard means to measure optimality is to do a flop count (floating point operations). Some folk measure a "flop" as one addition and one multiplication. The idea is to then count the flops in your algorithm. A good example is Matrix-Vector multiplication. To multiply an n-by-n matrix by a an n-vector would require roughly n^2 flops. Sometimes your matrix may have special properties (e.g., cyclic) and there are algorithms out there that can do the work in far less than n^2 flops. I would suggest at least an attempt to count flops. This is a very difficult aspect of algorithm construction. Once you have completed your algorithm, and have been over the entire process with diligence, you will then be in a position to analyze the good/bad of a previous post about a possible alternative algorithm for you. I leave it to you to weigh the good and bad of that algorithm. Best Regards, HossFly

A request was made to give no source code, and it was requested in BOLD. Yet you gave a link to an algorithm and source. Incredible.

Alright, we can break the problem down even further. I do intend to honor your request and not provide source or solution, but rather help you attack the problem. Here is a suggested course. Problem1: [1] Assume nominal flange depth and pounds per foot are fixed. [2] Assume there is only one standard size, and it is 30 ft. Problem2: [1] Assume Problem 1, but now allow for 30 ft or 35 ft standard sizes. I think once you solve Problem1, and especially after you solve Problem2, you will understand how the 30-65 feet increments are impacting your solution. Let me know how that goes. HossFly

I think I might be able to help. Before we start, I have two observations: [1] I take it that ordering the beams in a manner that is not suited to the design will result in someone at the site cutting / trimming / grinding each beam ordered to the beam design specs. If so, there are personnel charges, equipment usage, temporary storage locations, etc... that are costs to the company to make that happen. I do not see those costs in your description, and I wonder if sometimes the cost of buying a non-standard size/bundle is actually cheaper. I will ignore this complexity for now. [2] Clearly, the problem is overwhelming you as it has too many parameters to jostle at once. A good problem solving strategy in such cases is to relax a few of the paramaters and get a solution for the relaxed problem. For example, I would start off assuming you are always ordering beams of the same nominal flange depth and the same pounds per foot. The examples discussed almost suggest you are indeed making this assumption, but I want to be clear. I would like to start here and steer you to a solution. Once we find a solution for this relaxed problem, we will add back one of the constraints and see what changes. We will then continue to iterativley add back in all the constraints until the original problem is solved. Is this approach ok? HossFly

Look in the registry. Something like \HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\TypedURLS. Delete whichever one you like. HossFly.

Wasn't 2 the Lion King? Hoss Fly

To get the SDK and get it working [1] and [2] must be done - there is no SIMPLER way - period1. Graham also said "never learned C". DirectShow without knowing C (or COM) is impossible - period2. The Example are notoriously out of date. They also do not easily update across IDE versions. Someone with no C would have yet further problems. Do no make a tough chore sound easy and cause a great big 'ol waste of time and headache.

Hello, I was looking for an example project on how I could perform an overlay onto a live video window [C# if possible.] There are several articles showing how to display live video from a webcam, so how about one that does overlay onto the display as well? You can assume I know the window handle and size, and to keep it simple make the overlay a centered rectangle of uniform [pixel] width of 10. Henrici