S
Steve Rindsberg
If we can keep him away from the teevie, we might have some neet code by
Monday. <g>
Monday. <g>
Steve Rindsberg said:If we can keep him away from the teevie, we might have some neet code by
Despite TV, VB .NET version is done.
Next is the one that counts, VB 6!
Steve Rindsberg said:Push, push! I think I can see its head already!
Howard Kaikow said:I also encountered a weird case, posted in
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion with subject "Why would I have to use
If X = False, instead of If Not X, where X is Boolean?".
I fixed that.
C/C++ use a different value for True, so I modified th eC++, C#, VB .NET
and VB 6 versions to test for = 0 or for <> 0.
Now to do a final test in Office 2003, then Office 2002, then Office 2000
and then Office 97, to see whether my hypothesis about the thread count is
valid.
If so, I'll make a test case that others can use to verify the result.
I'll need volunteers for that..
If interested, send me an email.
I will limit the number of volunteers for each version of Office to 3.
The test will require having VB 6 or the VB 6 runtimes (see
http://www.standards.com/index.html?UsingVB6).
Steve Rindsberg said:O jeez. Here I thought I'd be teaching granny to suck eggs if I mentioned that
to you. <g> Seems the best thing to do is define your own constants for
true/false and change them as needed to suit the set of quirks local to the
programming tongue.
for =0 and said:Anyone with Office 2000 or later should have the VB6 runtimes. IIRC they're
installed with Office.
IAC, I've got copies of all Office versions running under Win2K_in_VMWare and
can cross check at least one or two versions under native Win2k and/or XP and
would be happy to heave them all at your tests.
Give me a yell at steve at sign pptools dot com
I knew about that issue, but I was just trying to mechanically convert code
'tween the languages.
I've always objected to programming relying on internal representation, so
for languages not having a true boolean, the only proper course is to test
OK, I'll count you as one of the volunteers.
Preliminary results, using PPT 2003, would indicate that the task is doable
based solely on the thread count.
First, I'm going to look over the rather bleak amount of PPT VBA stuff in
some books, then I'm going to more precisely state what is the problem.
I also have Office 97, Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003.
All systems have VB 6 Enterprise.
The Office XP system has VS .NET Pro 2002.
The Office 2003 system has VS .NET Pro 2003.
Do not have .NET on the Office 97 or Office 2000 systems.
For the most part, .Net is .Not on the agenda here.
Let me know if that's a problem.
Steve Rindsberg said:I'm sorry to hear about the timing issues; so close and then ... a slap in the
face with a wet rag. :-(
Here's the code I am currently using ...
Steve Rindsberg said:With a little luck, I may get some time this evening to give it a go.
Thanks!
I just ran the code for the first time using PPT 97 and PPT 2000.
There would likely need to be some algorithm adjust with (lack of) respect
to the thread counts.
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.