No, throughout this discussion I have been referring to your suggestion
of overwriting a GAC version with another version that has the same .NET
name but different VERSIONINFO. Yes, using private assemblies is the
best situation in most cases, I never said anything against that. Of
course anyone reading the archives will see that.
No. We were talking about you're incorrect, and dangerous 'solution' to
the original poster's problem. Don't try to change the subject.
<sheesh> you do find it difficult to grasp a concept, don't you? Just
read through the posts in this thread and you'll find I have been
consistent. You've been wandering around aimlessly.
Gosh, you've got a huge ego haven't you? I have been consistent in
talking about the OP's problem and correcting your reply. Frankly I
don't really care what *you* do. (Judging by your arguments, I would not
have too much confidence in your code anyway.)
Go on, you enjoy it don't you? Repeat it again, just for me. I love the
way that you say it <g>. Pratt.
It's generally known. But for your benefit, here's something from Alan
Yup. That's right. See Alan's blog entry.
Yup. You're learning.
No, according to Microsoft, as stated by Alan Shi.
No. Your problem was suggesting a hack that would bring back DLL Hell.