Run Time Error 1004
in [Visual Studio]
|
From: ralph on 16 Jul 2010 14:07 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:16:38 -0400, "Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote: > >| It's mentioned at the bottom of: >| http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa263527(v=VS.60).aspx >| (It took a bit of searching as it's not in the language reference at all >:) >| > >Well I'll be.... Thanks. > > It's somewhat confusing, though. It says the following: > >"Named arguments are not supported by methods on objects in the Visual Basic >(VB) object library. They are supported by all language keywords in the >Visual Basic for applications (VBA) object library." > > Their sample is using a Listbox, yet the statement >above seems to be saying that only language >keywords support named arguments. ... The use of "keywords" in this contex is unfortunate. The result of the author/s trying to be terse and concise, but achieving only the first. <g> All they are trying to say is while "Named Arguments" are not supported by all objects or libraries available in the VB product, they are commonly supported by objects in the libraries supplied with products that use VBA. It is useful to keep in mind when reading MS documentation several key Gotchas: 1) VB and VBA are proprietory and essentially undocumented 'black box' products. Whatever documentation is available is often written from a "Need to Know" point of view. I'm not suggesting the authors are deliberately trying to be obscure, but there occasions one has to wonder. <g> 2) Most of the documentation was written by hired users or consumers of the products, not by the actual developers. They themselves were often limited on the amount of detail they were given. 3) Also most of the documentation is simply reused from earlier versions. A workable labor-saving scheme back when MS was dedicated to backward-compatibility. VB and VBA were originally very distinct products albeit with a lot of borrowing, and treated as such by MS - with later versions these distinctions tend to blur with less "borrowing" and more "sharing". -ralph
From: ralph on 16 Jul 2010 14:25 ie, if a literal translation of MS documention appears ambiguous and a obscuration - it probably is. <g>
From: Kevin Provance on 17 Jul 2010 00:01 "ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net> wrote in message news:9ivv3658097eed8s3bdkf0vtpln037bv8f(a)4ax.com... : : Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal : http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html I really enjoyed that. It just further my belief that I was born one or two decades too late. The kind of lifestyle the Real Programmer leads is very appealing. The bit about the guy who hacked the Voyager code to include the program to photograph the Jupiter moon was exceptionally cool.
From: Kevin Provance on 17 Jul 2010 00:12 "Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:i1pl6o$196$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... : I've been wondering about the Viken Cerpovna : anagram. Is that another stepchild? Your alter ego? Actually, it is not. I never put that together. My guess, it's another one of the dumbass anonymous cowards who think they are the coolest thing since sliced bread to hide behind phony names in an attempt to irritate me (or impress me, whichever). The only thing that would impress me would be for those people to say whatever they want to say to me using their real names. But lo, this is Usenet, the Internet...it'll never happen. Say what you want about me, but I am no coward. I'll put my name behind anything I say. Pity no else else will.
From: Kevin Provance on 17 Jul 2010 00:16
"Viken Cerpovna" <viken(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:i1ofpr$snp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... Interesting twist on my real name there, douchy. Too coward to use your own? Oh wait...that answer is an obvious YES. LMAO. The lengths you trolls go to. Too funny. |