🚀 go-pugleaf

Thanks Remy & Rodolfo,

I think I favour the .lib file method. It is the way I normally deal with dlls. I'll give it a try anyway.

Thanks again for the help.

Cheers,

David


"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" <gambit47@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Rodolfo Frino" <rodolfofrino@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3f79c517@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> Not bad, but there is a  better way of doing that, have a
>> look at my other post.
>
>The only difference between your suggestion and mine is that your code
>dynamically loads the DLL at runtime whereas mine statically links to it at
>compile-time instead.  Either way, the same DLL is being accessed at runtime
>once the functions contained inside of the DLL are actually being called by
>the user's code.  It is just a matter of where the function pointers are
>coming from.  And since most modern computers have MAPI installed now
>anyway, there is little difference between using run-time loading vs.
>compile-time linking.  In the older days, MAPI wasn't as readily available,
>so run-time loading was used to make sure MAPI was installed first before
>trying to use it.  That is not so much the case anymore, unless you're
>trying to write programs that have backwards support all the way back to the
>earliest of the Windows 95 versions.
>
>
>Gambit
>
>