Calling on Methods and Properties within Worksheet Modules

  • Thread starter Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
  • Start date

R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

From within a class modules, is there a viable way to call on a public
method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet module?

I have setup a procedure with the following signature:

Public Sub pcdInitializeWorksheet(ByRef l_objScheduleRangeNames As
clsScheduleRangeNames)

and within the class module that is attempting to call on it, it's setup as:

l_wsh.pcdInitializeWorksheet m_objScheduleRangeNames

The object variable "l_wsh" is within a For Each...Next loop, which is a
worksheet object.

At the time it's compiling, it's erroring out stating the above method,
"pcdInitializeWorksheet", is not found. If I comment out that one line of
code, everything compiles just fine.

If it's not feasible to use worksheet modules as such, then I will be left
with no choice but to emulate the worksheets.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

JLGWhiz

Since you are calling a public Sub, the l_wsh is inappropriate. The Public
Sub should be in a public module, not a sheet module. If the procedure
pcdInitializeWorksheet is in the public module, the drop the l_wsh from the
call and it should respond.
 
R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

I'm attempting to have properties put into each worksheet, so as when I call
on which ever worksheet, I can get the proper value or set of values from
the code. Also, why the prequalified object, that's to avoid ambiguity
issues, as I will not introduce ambiguity into my code.

Based on what you are saying, I will have to emulate the worksheets.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
P

Peter T

If I follow what you are trying to say, and it's a highly dubious if!

Declare l_wsh As Object ' note not as worksheet

Regards,
Peter T
 
R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

Why is that? I am a strong believer of good programming practice, which
includes avoiding ambiguities whenever possible, which should be nearly 100%
of the time, if not 100% of the time. About the only time I can see when
ambiguity may not be avoided would be dealing with late binding due to other
limitations and the lack of being able to bind at compile time.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

The only reason why I can think of doing that, the Object data type is
similar to the Variant data type except it does have to refer to a class
module as an object. With that, instead of the variable being bound at
compile time, it would be bound at run time.

While this may be of benefit, if there comes a time when MS Office goes to
VB.NET base code (Not sure of MS Office 2007 is already like that or not),
then I would like to spend as little time converting code over to VB.NET
format. While VB.NET does allow for the Object data type, it's very
restrictive on what is and what is not allowed. It's already bad enough
that error trapping codes [among other adjustments] would have to be
modified in so many places when going from the VB6 base code to VB.NET base
code. If this happens, a lot of people will be abruptly awakened by the
various restrictions of VB.NET such as can't use the Variant data type, and
must explicitly declare all variables. Wouldn't be able to imply which
parent object such coded variable is refering to nearly as easily as done in
the VB6 base code. When stepping through code, rather than it compiling on
demand, when one makes an adjustment to code while debugging, program is
using the compiled code and the change the develop makes wouldn't take
effect until the code is compiled again. GoTo's and other similar
statements are no longer allowed in the .NET environment. Error trapping is
done via the Try...Catch...Final blocks. MS did this stuff to force people
to use more of the good programming practices, so as when debugging, it's
much easier to catch things. Of course, not all of the good programming
practice rules can be enforced like this as people can still use names
that's not so easy to tell what they are, formatting issues, and what ever
else there may be.

A couple of the benefits though of VB.NET would be that it would be compiled
into MSIL, so as multiple programming languages can be used for the same
code (in some cases, VB wouldn't be able to be used, but more so C#), and
instead of having to create multiple methods/properties, each method and
property can have multiple signatures.

These are just a few of the several differences between the 2 base codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
P

Peter T

Ronald, if I may say you are making this excessively complicated :)

In your OP you said you had -
"public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet module"
also you want to loop these worksheets. If your code is in worksheet
modules it is "VBA", and if you want to use a worksheet Object it is part of
Excel's object model. Whether thereafter you want your loop in VBA, VB6 or
..Net or any other language is irrelevant.

Try this simple test

at the top of EACH worksheet module
Public a as Long

in a normal module

Sub Test()
dim i as long
Dim obj as Object

For each obj in Worksheets
i = i + 10
obj.a = i
debug.? obj.a
next

End Sub

Run test and you should see 10, 20, 30 (assuming 3 worksheets) in the
immediate window. .

Now change 'As Object' to 'As Worksheet'.

It'll fail for the same reason your code fails. Simply because ' a ' is not
a property of a worksheet as defined in the relevant typelib

An alternative approach, and perhaps a better one, would be to subclass your
worksheets using WithEvents. Then you can include whatever additional
methods and properties you wish and get the intellisense, no binding issues
etc. You could maintain these classes in whatever app you are working with,
eg outside workbook or even outside Excel depending on your app.

Regards,
Peter T


Ronald R. Dodge said:
The only reason why I can think of doing that, the Object data type is
similar to the Variant data type except it does have to refer to a class
module as an object. With that, instead of the variable being bound at
compile time, it would be bound at run time.

While this may be of benefit, if there comes a time when MS Office goes to
VB.NET base code (Not sure of MS Office 2007 is already like that or not),
then I would like to spend as little time converting code over to VB.NET
format. While VB.NET does allow for the Object data type, it's very
restrictive on what is and what is not allowed. It's already bad enough
that error trapping codes [among other adjustments] would have to be
modified in so many places when going from the VB6 base code to VB.NET
base code. If this happens, a lot of people will be abruptly awakened by
the various restrictions of VB.NET such as can't use the Variant data
type, and must explicitly declare all variables. Wouldn't be able to
imply which parent object such coded variable is refering to nearly as
easily as done in the VB6 base code. When stepping through code, rather
than it compiling on demand, when one makes an adjustment to code while
debugging, program is using the compiled code and the change the develop
makes wouldn't take effect until the code is compiled again. GoTo's and
other similar statements are no longer allowed in the .NET environment.
Error trapping is done via the Try...Catch...Final blocks. MS did this
stuff to force people to use more of the good programming practices, so as
when debugging, it's much easier to catch things. Of course, not all of
the good programming practice rules can be enforced like this as people
can still use names that's not so easy to tell what they are, formatting
issues, and what ever else there may be.

A couple of the benefits though of VB.NET would be that it would be
compiled into MSIL, so as multiple programming languages can be used for
the same code (in some cases, VB wouldn't be able to be used, but more so
C#), and instead of having to create multiple methods/properties, each
method and property can have multiple signatures.

These are just a few of the several differences between the 2 base codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
Try it, I'm sure you will then work out why.

Regards,
Peter T
 
R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

Yes, this is VBA, but remember, even though it's VBA, VBA in 2000, 2002, and
2003 (not sure about 2007) is still based on VB6, though obviously not the
full set of VB6 codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
Ronald, if I may say you are making this excessively complicated :)

In your OP you said you had -
"public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet module"
also you want to loop these worksheets. If your code is in worksheet
modules it is "VBA", and if you want to use a worksheet Object it is part
of Excel's object model. Whether thereafter you want your loop in VBA, VB6
or .Net or any other language is irrelevant.

Try this simple test

at the top of EACH worksheet module
Public a as Long

in a normal module

Sub Test()
dim i as long
Dim obj as Object

For each obj in Worksheets
i = i + 10
obj.a = i
debug.? obj.a
next

End Sub

Run test and you should see 10, 20, 30 (assuming 3 worksheets) in the
immediate window. .

Now change 'As Object' to 'As Worksheet'.

It'll fail for the same reason your code fails. Simply because ' a ' is
not a property of a worksheet as defined in the relevant typelib

An alternative approach, and perhaps a better one, would be to subclass
your worksheets using WithEvents. Then you can include whatever additional
methods and properties you wish and get the intellisense, no binding
issues etc. You could maintain these classes in whatever app you are
working with, eg outside workbook or even outside Excel depending on your
app.

Regards,
Peter T


Ronald R. Dodge said:
The only reason why I can think of doing that, the Object data type is
similar to the Variant data type except it does have to refer to a class
module as an object. With that, instead of the variable being bound at
compile time, it would be bound at run time.

While this may be of benefit, if there comes a time when MS Office goes
to VB.NET base code (Not sure of MS Office 2007 is already like that or
not), then I would like to spend as little time converting code over to
VB.NET format. While VB.NET does allow for the Object data type, it's
very restrictive on what is and what is not allowed. It's already bad
enough that error trapping codes [among other adjustments] would have to
be modified in so many places when going from the VB6 base code to VB.NET
base code. If this happens, a lot of people will be abruptly awakened by
the various restrictions of VB.NET such as can't use the Variant data
type, and must explicitly declare all variables. Wouldn't be able to
imply which parent object such coded variable is refering to nearly as
easily as done in the VB6 base code. When stepping through code, rather
than it compiling on demand, when one makes an adjustment to code while
debugging, program is using the compiled code and the change the develop
makes wouldn't take effect until the code is compiled again. GoTo's and
other similar statements are no longer allowed in the .NET environment.
Error trapping is done via the Try...Catch...Final blocks. MS did this
stuff to force people to use more of the good programming practices, so
as when debugging, it's much easier to catch things. Of course, not all
of the good programming practice rules can be enforced like this as
people can still use names that's not so easy to tell what they are,
formatting issues, and what ever else there may be.

A couple of the benefits though of VB.NET would be that it would be
compiled into MSIL, so as multiple programming languages can be used for
the same code (in some cases, VB wouldn't be able to be used, but more so
C#), and instead of having to create multiple methods/properties, each
method and property can have multiple signatures.

These are just a few of the several differences between the 2 base codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
Why is that?

Try it, I'm sure you will then work out why.

Regards,
Peter T

Why is that? I am a strong believer of good programming practice,
which includes avoiding ambiguities whenever possible, which should be
nearly 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time. About the only time
I can see when ambiguity may not be avoided would be dealing with late
binding due to other limitations and the lack of being able to bind at
compile time.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
If I follow what you are trying to say, and it's a highly dubious if!

Declare l_wsh As Object ' note not as worksheet

Regards,
Peter T

From within a class modules, is there a viable way to call on a
public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet
module?

I have setup a procedure with the following signature:

Public Sub pcdInitializeWorksheet(ByRef l_objScheduleRangeNames As
clsScheduleRangeNames)

and within the class module that is attempting to call on it, it's
setup as:

l_wsh.pcdInitializeWorksheet m_objScheduleRangeNames

The object variable "l_wsh" is within a For Each...Next loop, which
is a worksheet object.

At the time it's compiling, it's erroring out stating the above
method, "pcdInitializeWorksheet", is not found. If I comment out
that one line of code, everything compiles just fine.

If it's not feasible to use worksheet modules as such, then I will be
left with no choice but to emulate the worksheets.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
P

Peter T

I don't get the point of that, I know it's VBA.

Whatever, does the suggested solution work for you and is the explanation
understood.

Regards,
Peter T

PS I should make it clear all of what I have written and suggested is based
on my interpretation of your OP, which may not be correct)

Ronald R. Dodge said:
Yes, this is VBA, but remember, even though it's VBA, VBA in 2000, 2002,
and 2003 (not sure about 2007) is still based on VB6, though obviously not
the full set of VB6 codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
Ronald, if I may say you are making this excessively complicated :)

In your OP you said you had -
"public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet module"
also you want to loop these worksheets. If your code is in worksheet
modules it is "VBA", and if you want to use a worksheet Object it is part
of Excel's object model. Whether thereafter you want your loop in VBA,
VB6 or .Net or any other language is irrelevant.

Try this simple test

at the top of EACH worksheet module
Public a as Long

in a normal module

Sub Test()
dim i as long
Dim obj as Object

For each obj in Worksheets
i = i + 10
obj.a = i
debug.? obj.a
next

End Sub

Run test and you should see 10, 20, 30 (assuming 3 worksheets) in the
immediate window. .

Now change 'As Object' to 'As Worksheet'.

It'll fail for the same reason your code fails. Simply because ' a ' is
not a property of a worksheet as defined in the relevant typelib

An alternative approach, and perhaps a better one, would be to subclass
your worksheets using WithEvents. Then you can include whatever
additional methods and properties you wish and get the intellisense, no
binding issues etc. You could maintain these classes in whatever app you
are working with, eg outside workbook or even outside Excel depending on
your app.

Regards,
Peter T


Ronald R. Dodge said:
The only reason why I can think of doing that, the Object data type is
similar to the Variant data type except it does have to refer to a class
module as an object. With that, instead of the variable being bound at
compile time, it would be bound at run time.

While this may be of benefit, if there comes a time when MS Office goes
to VB.NET base code (Not sure of MS Office 2007 is already like that or
not), then I would like to spend as little time converting code over to
VB.NET format. While VB.NET does allow for the Object data type, it's
very restrictive on what is and what is not allowed. It's already bad
enough that error trapping codes [among other adjustments] would have to
be modified in so many places when going from the VB6 base code to
VB.NET base code. If this happens, a lot of people will be abruptly
awakened by the various restrictions of VB.NET such as can't use the
Variant data type, and must explicitly declare all variables. Wouldn't
be able to imply which parent object such coded variable is refering to
nearly as easily as done in the VB6 base code. When stepping through
code, rather than it compiling on demand, when one makes an adjustment
to code while debugging, program is using the compiled code and the
change the develop makes wouldn't take effect until the code is compiled
again. GoTo's and other similar statements are no longer allowed in the
.NET environment. Error trapping is done via the Try...Catch...Final
blocks. MS did this stuff to force people to use more of the good
programming practices, so as when debugging, it's much easier to catch
things. Of course, not all of the good programming practice rules can
be enforced like this as people can still use names that's not so easy
to tell what they are, formatting issues, and what ever else there may
be.

A couple of the benefits though of VB.NET would be that it would be
compiled into MSIL, so as multiple programming languages can be used for
the same code (in some cases, VB wouldn't be able to be used, but more
so C#), and instead of having to create multiple methods/properties,
each method and property can have multiple signatures.

These are just a few of the several differences between the 2 base
codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Why is that?

Try it, I'm sure you will then work out why.

Regards,
Peter T

Why is that? I am a strong believer of good programming practice,
which includes avoiding ambiguities whenever possible, which should be
nearly 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time. About the only time
I can see when ambiguity may not be avoided would be dealing with late
binding due to other limitations and the lack of being able to bind at
compile time.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
If I follow what you are trying to say, and it's a highly dubious if!

Declare l_wsh As Object ' note not as worksheet

Regards,
Peter T

From within a class modules, is there a viable way to call on a
public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet
module?

I have setup a procedure with the following signature:

Public Sub pcdInitializeWorksheet(ByRef l_objScheduleRangeNames As
clsScheduleRangeNames)

and within the class module that is attempting to call on it, it's
setup as:

l_wsh.pcdInitializeWorksheet m_objScheduleRangeNames

The object variable "l_wsh" is within a For Each...Next loop, which
is a worksheet object.

At the time it's compiling, it's erroring out stating the above
method, "pcdInitializeWorksheet", is not found. If I comment out
that one line of code, everything compiles just fine.

If it's not feasible to use worksheet modules as such, then I will
be left with no choice but to emulate the worksheets.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

Also, as far as using the Public keyword for declaring variables within a
class module, that doesn't work too well, if even at all. Variables within
a class modules not within a method or property are declared as private
variables and only exposed via public property codes (if done properly).
The only type of module that I know of for public declared variables to work
half way decently, but then can't use it to listen for events among other
issues are within standard modules. Standard modules do have their uses
though.

As for your explanation of why to use Object instead of Worksheet, I
understand that, but at the same time, you still go from compiling (binding)
at design time to compiling (binding) the variable at run time simply cause
the compiler doesn't know what it's going to be bound to when it compiled at
design time, so that variable is skipped.

I guess part of the reason why I tend to shy away from such issues is cause
of various issues I have ran into in the past, thus why I have incorporated
various programming rules, some even stricter than what the industry has. I
have picked up various programming rules from various places, and even some
self created. There has been times when I even broke my own self created
programming rules only to run into the various issues why I had created the
self created rules, thus one such reason why I'm reluctant to breaking them
unless there's a very good reason for breaking them.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
I don't get the point of that, I know it's VBA.

Whatever, does the suggested solution work for you and is the explanation
understood.

Regards,
Peter T

PS I should make it clear all of what I have written and suggested is
based on my interpretation of your OP, which may not be correct)

Ronald R. Dodge said:
Yes, this is VBA, but remember, even though it's VBA, VBA in 2000, 2002,
and 2003 (not sure about 2007) is still based on VB6, though obviously
not the full set of VB6 codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
Ronald, if I may say you are making this excessively complicated :)

In your OP you said you had -
"public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet module"
also you want to loop these worksheets. If your code is in worksheet
modules it is "VBA", and if you want to use a worksheet Object it is
part of Excel's object model. Whether thereafter you want your loop in
VBA, VB6 or .Net or any other language is irrelevant.

Try this simple test

at the top of EACH worksheet module
Public a as Long

in a normal module

Sub Test()
dim i as long
Dim obj as Object

For each obj in Worksheets
i = i + 10
obj.a = i
debug.? obj.a
next

End Sub

Run test and you should see 10, 20, 30 (assuming 3 worksheets) in the
immediate window. .

Now change 'As Object' to 'As Worksheet'.

It'll fail for the same reason your code fails. Simply because ' a ' is
not a property of a worksheet as defined in the relevant typelib

An alternative approach, and perhaps a better one, would be to subclass
your worksheets using WithEvents. Then you can include whatever
additional methods and properties you wish and get the intellisense, no
binding issues etc. You could maintain these classes in whatever app you
are working with, eg outside workbook or even outside Excel depending on
your app.

Regards,
Peter T


The only reason why I can think of doing that, the Object data type is
similar to the Variant data type except it does have to refer to a
class module as an object. With that, instead of the variable being
bound at compile time, it would be bound at run time.

While this may be of benefit, if there comes a time when MS Office goes
to VB.NET base code (Not sure of MS Office 2007 is already like that or
not), then I would like to spend as little time converting code over to
VB.NET format. While VB.NET does allow for the Object data type, it's
very restrictive on what is and what is not allowed. It's already bad
enough that error trapping codes [among other adjustments] would have
to be modified in so many places when going from the VB6 base code to
VB.NET base code. If this happens, a lot of people will be abruptly
awakened by the various restrictions of VB.NET such as can't use the
Variant data type, and must explicitly declare all variables. Wouldn't
be able to imply which parent object such coded variable is refering to
nearly as easily as done in the VB6 base code. When stepping through
code, rather than it compiling on demand, when one makes an adjustment
to code while debugging, program is using the compiled code and the
change the develop makes wouldn't take effect until the code is
compiled again. GoTo's and other similar statements are no longer
allowed in the .NET environment. Error trapping is done via the
Try...Catch...Final blocks. MS did this stuff to force people to use
more of the good programming practices, so as when debugging, it's much
easier to catch things. Of course, not all of the good programming
practice rules can be enforced like this as people can still use names
that's not so easy to tell what they are, formatting issues, and what
ever else there may be.

A couple of the benefits though of VB.NET would be that it would be
compiled into MSIL, so as multiple programming languages can be used
for the same code (in some cases, VB wouldn't be able to be used, but
more so C#), and instead of having to create multiple
methods/properties, each method and property can have multiple
signatures.

These are just a few of the several differences between the 2 base
codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Why is that?

Try it, I'm sure you will then work out why.

Regards,
Peter T

Why is that? I am a strong believer of good programming practice,
which includes avoiding ambiguities whenever possible, which should
be nearly 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time. About the only
time I can see when ambiguity may not be avoided would be dealing
with late binding due to other limitations and the lack of being able
to bind at compile time.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
If I follow what you are trying to say, and it's a highly dubious
if!

Declare l_wsh As Object ' note not as worksheet

Regards,
Peter T

From within a class modules, is there a viable way to call on a
public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet
module?

I have setup a procedure with the following signature:

Public Sub pcdInitializeWorksheet(ByRef l_objScheduleRangeNames As
clsScheduleRangeNames)

and within the class module that is attempting to call on it, it's
setup as:

l_wsh.pcdInitializeWorksheet m_objScheduleRangeNames

The object variable "l_wsh" is within a For Each...Next loop, which
is a worksheet object.

At the time it's compiling, it's erroring out stating the above
method, "pcdInitializeWorksheet", is not found. If I comment out
that one line of code, everything compiles just fine.

If it's not feasible to use worksheet modules as such, then I will
be left with no choice but to emulate the worksheets.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.

For the time being, I have put in a temporary fix, at least enough for me to
get on by the issue, which I do have a deadline to meet. I will need to go
back and put in a permanent fix.

The temporary fix is using the "ThisWorkbook" module to expose the various
elements though with some minor work arounds that I have to use in the mean
time for this to work I still have not resorted to anything that could lead
to ambiguities. The compiler didn't have any issues and everything ran fine
at run-time. I still have other work to do, but the long-term solution to
this will be to create a totally separate entity (Some may call it COM or
Component Object Model), then have the workbooks reference to that separate
entity.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
I don't get the point of that, I know it's VBA.

Whatever, does the suggested solution work for you and is the explanation
understood.

Regards,
Peter T

PS I should make it clear all of what I have written and suggested is
based on my interpretation of your OP, which may not be correct)

Ronald R. Dodge said:
Yes, this is VBA, but remember, even though it's VBA, VBA in 2000, 2002,
and 2003 (not sure about 2007) is still based on VB6, though obviously
not the full set of VB6 codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Peter T said:
Ronald, if I may say you are making this excessively complicated :)

In your OP you said you had -
"public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet module"
also you want to loop these worksheets. If your code is in worksheet
modules it is "VBA", and if you want to use a worksheet Object it is
part of Excel's object model. Whether thereafter you want your loop in
VBA, VB6 or .Net or any other language is irrelevant.

Try this simple test

at the top of EACH worksheet module
Public a as Long

in a normal module

Sub Test()
dim i as long
Dim obj as Object

For each obj in Worksheets
i = i + 10
obj.a = i
debug.? obj.a
next

End Sub

Run test and you should see 10, 20, 30 (assuming 3 worksheets) in the
immediate window. .

Now change 'As Object' to 'As Worksheet'.

It'll fail for the same reason your code fails. Simply because ' a ' is
not a property of a worksheet as defined in the relevant typelib

An alternative approach, and perhaps a better one, would be to subclass
your worksheets using WithEvents. Then you can include whatever
additional methods and properties you wish and get the intellisense, no
binding issues etc. You could maintain these classes in whatever app you
are working with, eg outside workbook or even outside Excel depending on
your app.

Regards,
Peter T


The only reason why I can think of doing that, the Object data type is
similar to the Variant data type except it does have to refer to a
class module as an object. With that, instead of the variable being
bound at compile time, it would be bound at run time.

While this may be of benefit, if there comes a time when MS Office goes
to VB.NET base code (Not sure of MS Office 2007 is already like that or
not), then I would like to spend as little time converting code over to
VB.NET format. While VB.NET does allow for the Object data type, it's
very restrictive on what is and what is not allowed. It's already bad
enough that error trapping codes [among other adjustments] would have
to be modified in so many places when going from the VB6 base code to
VB.NET base code. If this happens, a lot of people will be abruptly
awakened by the various restrictions of VB.NET such as can't use the
Variant data type, and must explicitly declare all variables. Wouldn't
be able to imply which parent object such coded variable is refering to
nearly as easily as done in the VB6 base code. When stepping through
code, rather than it compiling on demand, when one makes an adjustment
to code while debugging, program is using the compiled code and the
change the develop makes wouldn't take effect until the code is
compiled again. GoTo's and other similar statements are no longer
allowed in the .NET environment. Error trapping is done via the
Try...Catch...Final blocks. MS did this stuff to force people to use
more of the good programming practices, so as when debugging, it's much
easier to catch things. Of course, not all of the good programming
practice rules can be enforced like this as people can still use names
that's not so easy to tell what they are, formatting issues, and what
ever else there may be.

A couple of the benefits though of VB.NET would be that it would be
compiled into MSIL, so as multiple programming languages can be used
for the same code (in some cases, VB wouldn't be able to be used, but
more so C#), and instead of having to create multiple
methods/properties, each method and property can have multiple
signatures.

These are just a few of the several differences between the 2 base
codes.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
Why is that?

Try it, I'm sure you will then work out why.

Regards,
Peter T

Why is that? I am a strong believer of good programming practice,
which includes avoiding ambiguities whenever possible, which should
be nearly 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time. About the only
time I can see when ambiguity may not be avoided would be dealing
with late binding due to other limitations and the lack of being able
to bind at compile time.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
If I follow what you are trying to say, and it's a highly dubious
if!

Declare l_wsh As Object ' note not as worksheet

Regards,
Peter T

From within a class modules, is there a viable way to call on a
public method and/or property that is setup within a worksheet
module?

I have setup a procedure with the following signature:

Public Sub pcdInitializeWorksheet(ByRef l_objScheduleRangeNames As
clsScheduleRangeNames)

and within the class module that is attempting to call on it, it's
setup as:

l_wsh.pcdInitializeWorksheet m_objScheduleRangeNames

The object variable "l_wsh" is within a For Each...Next loop, which
is a worksheet object.

At the time it's compiling, it's erroring out stating the above
method, "pcdInitializeWorksheet", is not found. If I comment out
that one line of code, everything compiles just fine.

If it's not feasible to use worksheet modules as such, then I will
be left with no choice but to emulate the worksheets.

--
Thanks,

Ronald R. Dodge, Jr.
Production Statistician
Master MOUS 2000
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top