From: Kevin Provance on

"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message
| If that's what you need to feel good about yourself, sure. Now, you can
| back to beating your wife and children.

Wow, you really are a colossal piece of $hit, aren't you? Statements like
that really speak a lot about your character and who you are as a
person...and it's not in a flattering way. If you're brave enough to say
things like this from behind the safety of your mom's basement computer,
then I assume you could say them face to face. Feel free to let me know
when you're in town as I would *love* to put you to that test. I'd tell you
to pick on someone you're own size, but I suspect that there are very few
people who are that grotesquely obese.

From: Karl E. Peterson on
Scott M. wrote:
> If that's what you need to feel good about yourself, sure. Now, you can go
> back to beating your wife and children.

LOL!!! (Counting down to the Hitler invocations...)
..NET: It's About Trust!

From: Alex Clark on
"Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)> wrote in message
> Mike Williams wrote:
>> "Alex Clark" <quanta(a)noemail.noemail> wrote ...
>>> , still supports
>>> an ancient keword like "Call". And, unfortunately, GoTo
>>> as well. And, in fact, every other core BASIC keyword.
>> No it doesn't. Gosub, for example, is not supported in VB.Net. Stop

Well goodness gracious, they finally killed it off? I had no idea, but
thank goodness for that - a wasteful, pointless keyword. It does highlight
an inconsistency in MS' approach though, as "Call" is similarly superfluous
and should really have been removed. Unfortunately however, GoTo is still
supported. I can't think of any reason why any programmer (with skills
beyond an 11yr old) would need to use GoSub or GoTo, but I'm sure there are
some on here who will doubtless be professing their undying love for both.

From: Bill McCarthy on
Hi Tom,

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)> wrote in message
> Oh, I don't know... Yes - it's superflous, but, there's nothing wrong
> with
> it. I certainly don't use it anymore - but, that's probably because I
> switched to C# shortly after I started using .NET :)

If it is superfluous, which it is, it does more harm to use it and gives no
benefit. Consider the cases where you have

Call Foo(bar)

To novices it would be reasonable for them to ask what is the difference
between these two method calls. The Call keyword does nothing, is completely
superfluous. Really, the compiler should emit a warning about it being
obsolete, and even offer to strip them from the code for you.
If it did something different then that would be a different case, but it

FWIW, in VB6, I only used Call with Functions, so you could write something

rtn = Foo(bar, baz, a,b,c)
Call Foo(bar, baz, a,b,c)

This way you can easily decide if you want the return value or not without
messing with the parenthesis. As said before, you no longer have to worry
about that in VB .NET, so I would say the Call keyword is a clear candidate
for being made Obsolete.

From: Karl E. Peterson on
Alex Clark wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)> wrote ...

Yo Dilrod, I'll thank you to at least get your attributions straight.

> beyond an 11yr old)

Even a 5th grader would know who they were quoting.
..NET: It's About Trust!

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles