>Probably true - but an extension method gets round Dmitry's naming problem :-}


True - but will clutter up


>>Since this won't be used very frequently, I would stay away from extension methods in this case and create a separate class to handle encrypt/decrypt
>>
>>>Actually sounds like a candidate for an extension method on string:

    public static class DmitryExtensions
>>>    {
>>>        public static string Encode (this string s)
>>>        {
>>>            //Return encoded here
>>>            return s;
>>>        }
>>>        public static string Decode(this string s)
>>>        {
>>>            //Return decoded here
>>>            return s;
>>>        }
>>>    }

Called like:

    string text = "Hello".Encode();
>>>    private string y = text.Decode();
>>>
>>>    //You can also chain (thought not much sense in this particular context)
>>>    private string chained = "Hello".Encode().Decode();

If the methods will be used in other projects put them in their own DLL and reference that when you need the methods.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My class String has two methods Encode and Decode where I can encode and decode a string. The encode and decode code has to be the "same" as my VFP code (to make ASP.NET compatible with VFP app). So I use my class String as following:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>cPassword = "ABCD";
>>>>string Decoded;
>>>>Decoded = MyNameSpace.String.Decoded( cPassword );

Gregory