1  2  |   Order by index

Jul 4, 2003, 8:21pm

[View Quote] I'm not familiar with VB syntax, but it doesn't look like it should work.

--
--Bowen--

Jul 5, 2003, 12:10am

It is (sadly) valid code as far as the compiler is concerned, because VB
lets you get away with bad form. The reason its "valid" is because
(AW_INT_NAME) resolves to the value of AW_INT_NAME and it becomes a
non-returning call to a function (i.e. any return code is discarded).
However, IMO if people are going to post example code, they should take on a
little more responsibility to those they believe they are "teaching" in a
technical newsgroup.

Too much "Ooooh... this'll make me look clever" and not enough care. Its one
of the most misleading snippets of code I've seen. I was due a rant so
that's it.

Grims.

[View Quote]

Jul 5, 2003, 2:04pm

[View Quote] ohhh... Now I think I get it. It's like saying:
Sdk.aw_int_set (AW_INT_NAME), 123

I guess that would work but I agree with you that it's very misleading.

--
-Agent1

Jul 5, 2003, 4:20pm

Glad that little fiasco is over...

Im going to agree with Grimble... That form is complete and utter rubbish in
all all honesty... random ( )'s do nothing but confuse the coder. Really you
should stick to as close to C++ syntax as you possibly can when teaching
because of the rules of engagement so to speak....

call functionx(arglist, arglist2, arglist3) type of thing..

- Mark

1  2  |   Order by index