VB6 With/End With - how to pass the object itself?
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Graphic Draw Question
Next: Redirection
From: Karl E. Peterson on 4 Mar 2010 13:39 ralph wrote: > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:15:56 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm just looking at it with my purist's hat on. In the case of a form >>>> I can use Me in many cases. I think With/End With was an afterthought >>>> that the MS designers came up with later end with. It's not a major >>>> problem! >>>> >>>> MM >>> >>> Actually a well-thought out extension to the language. >>> >>> The title of "Afterthought" more properly belongs to "While...Wend". >>> <g> >> >> Huh? That one goes *waaaaay* back, to the days well before compound >> keywords. Shoot, it might have even preceeded For/Next? > > Yeah, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean that While...Wend was > a Microsoft invention, Well, it may actually *have* been a Microsoft invention. <g> I can't seem to find it in any BASIC manuals or languages prior to GW-BASIC... GW-BASIC 2.02 (C) Copyright Microsoft 1983,1984 GWBASIC version 2.08 (C) Copyright Zenith Data Systems 1984 60682 Bytes free Ok while WHILE without WEND Ok > only that it was essentially just a whim of an > author. I thought that was common knowledge. > > There is an article somewhere. I'm looking ... The whim of an author? I'm not familiar, at all, with that saga. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: ralph on 4 Mar 2010 17:03 On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:39:28 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >>> >>> Huh? That one goes *waaaaay* back, to the days well before compound >>> keywords. Shoot, it might have even preceeded For/Next? >> >> Yeah, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean that While...Wend was >> a Microsoft invention, > >Well, it may actually *have* been a Microsoft invention. <g> I can't >seem to find it in any BASIC manuals or languages prior to GW-BASIC... > > GW-BASIC 2.02 > (C) Copyright Microsoft 1983,1984 > GWBASIC version 2.08 > (C) Copyright Zenith Data Systems 1984 > 60682 Bytes free > Ok > while > WHILE without WEND > Ok > >> only that it was essentially just a whim of an >> author. I thought that was common knowledge. >> >> There is an article somewhere. I'm looking ... > >The whim of an author? I'm not familiar, at all, with that saga. I can't find the damn article! (Can't seem to find anything with Google any more. Used to be proud of my 'search' skills - but they are zip/nada any more.) Can't even remember their names. But would if I heard them. They were the authors (two of them) of the article so it was biographical in nature. Essentially what they were talking about was the reasoning behind the code for various "loops" - they had two - the "Do...Loop" and the simpler "While...Wend". They weren't all that thrilled with "While...Wend", as it is often mentioned it doesn't really bring anything new to the table, but the code was already written, tested, and available. Also they explained how "Wend" made it as a keyword instead of "End While" or "While End". They really didn't want to add yet another keyword, but the alternatives just seemed *ugly* so around midnight - "Wend" it was. I remember the article mostly because I always get a kick out of discovering that even the Ghods among us have their "Oh, what the hell" moments. Many a time I've shipped a feature, less because I thought it was necessary, but because I had already written the code. <g> -ralph
From: Karl E. Peterson on 4 Mar 2010 17:15 ralph wrote: > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:39:28 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: > >>>> >>>> Huh? That one goes *waaaaay* back, to the days well before compound >>>> keywords. Shoot, it might have even preceeded For/Next? >>> >>> Yeah, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean that While...Wend was >>> a Microsoft invention, >> >> Well, it may actually *have* been a Microsoft invention. <g> I can't >> seem to find it in any BASIC manuals or languages prior to GW-BASIC... >> >> GW-BASIC 2.02 >> (C) Copyright Microsoft 1983,1984 >> GWBASIC version 2.08 >> (C) Copyright Zenith Data Systems 1984 >> 60682 Bytes free >> Ok >> while >> WHILE without WEND >> Ok >> >>> only that it was essentially just a whim of an >>> author. I thought that was common knowledge. >>> >>> There is an article somewhere. I'm looking ... >> >> The whim of an author? I'm not familiar, at all, with that saga. > > I can't find the damn article! > (Can't seem to find anything with Google any more. Used to be proud of > my 'search' skills - but they are zip/nada any more.) > > Can't even remember their names. But would if I heard them. > They were the authors (two of them) of the article so it was > biographical in nature. Essentially what they were talking about was > the reasoning behind the code for various "loops" - they had two - the > "Do...Loop" and the simpler "While...Wend". They weren't all that > thrilled with "While...Wend", as it is often mentioned it doesn't > really bring anything new to the table, but the code was already > written, tested, and available. > > Also they explained how "Wend" made it as a keyword instead of "End > While" or "While End". They really didn't want to add yet another > keyword, but the alternatives just seemed *ugly* so around midnight - > "Wend" it was. > > I remember the article mostly because I always get a kick out of > discovering that even the Ghods among us have their "Oh, what the > hell" moments. Many a time I've shipped a feature, less because I > thought it was necessary, but because I had already written the code. > <g> Huh! Well, fading memory is just a natural thing, so no worries there. <g> But I tell ya, I'm pretty damn sure While/Wend preceded Do/Loop by a long shot. I remember being thrilled when they added it, I think in QuickBasic?, as that added three new options to the mix. Never used While/Wend again, after that. And, not to go all "snopes" on you, but I was thinking it was Wend because those early parsers didn't cope very well with multi-part keywords? <g> -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: ralph on 4 Mar 2010 19:15 On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:15:48 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > >And, not to go all "snopes" on you, but I was thinking it was Wend >because those early parsers didn't cope very well with multi-part >keywords? <g> I may be hallucinating. Don't think I am, but I'm seldom a good judge. -ralph
From: MM on 5 Mar 2010 04:30
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:03:05 -0600, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net> wrote: >(Can't seem to find anything with Google any more. Used to be proud of >my 'search' skills - but they are zip/nada any more.) That's because Google is now soley in the business of making money. I get really pissed off the way it places hits at the top that are just advertising, or the way it classes as a hit items that seem to me to be totally obscure. Increasingly I have to word my search phrase carefully and make extensive use of quotes and +/- to include/exclude. Like every large, successful organisation (e.g. Microsoft in its day), the people at the top are infected with delusions of grandeur and from then on we just have to learn to suck it up. But I had a look at Bing and that seems amatuerish. Tried Clusty? That still seems to be relating to users, rather than obscene greed. MM |