Replies

When ever prompted for dates, I always like to enter them dd mmm yyyy (ie. 2 sep 2004). This way, there is absolutely no ambiquity in what I intend the date to be (and MS Access handles the convertion correctly). This may help you in the future (although probably not with this particular problem )

Like you Patric, being in New Zealand, our dates are regionally formatted dd/mm/yyyy , but because of the more ‘native’ use of mm/dd/yyyy I have had a great deal of headaches in the past.

Glad you found a solution.

Use a DAO database object

dim db as DAO.Database
set db = currentdb

Then use the EXECUTE method of the database object to do the update

db.execute(“UPDATE … “)

Then call the RECORDSAFFECTED property of the database object

msgbox(“Updated ” & db.recordsaffected & ” records.”)

This should work.

You could encapsulate the operation in a transaction maybe to rollback if need be?

Use a DAO database object

dim db as DAO.Database
set db = currentdb

Then use the EXECUTE method of the database object to do the update

db.execute(“UPDATE … “)

Then call the RECORDSAFFECTED property of the database object

msgbox(“Updated ” & db.recordsaffected & ” records.”)

This should work.

You could encapsulate the operation in a transaction maybe to rollback if need be?

Just as a random thought…you haven’t got any other ‘odd’ references set that may be MISSING (maybe not even linked to MS Word or Office)? You can check this by going to TOOLS –> REFERENCES and making sure none of the checked ‘available references’ have the words MISSING in front of them?

Just as a random thought…you haven’t got any other ‘odd’ references set that may be MISSING (maybe not even linked to MS Word or Office)? You can check this by going to TOOLS –> REFERENCES and making sure none of the checked ‘available references’ have the words MISSING in front of them?

Microsoft Excel??

Just thought as well, there is no reason (that I know of) why you can’t leave your old MS Access on there with the new version of office standard either.

J

Just thought as well, there is no reason (that I know of) why you can’t leave your old MS Access on there with the new version of office standard either.

J

Depending on who created it for you, if you are just using a ‘user interface’, the people that created if for you may be able to supply you with the ‘royalty’ free ‘run-time’ version of MS Access. They will hve to have a license for MS Office Developer in order to do so (if that is stills supported). YOu should talk to them about it.

J

Depending on who created it for you, if you are just using a ‘user interface’, the people that created if for you may be able to supply you with the ‘royalty’ free ‘run-time’ version of MS Access. They will hve to have a license for MS Office Developer in order to do so (if that is stills supported). YOu should talk to them about it.

J

The book that I have found and thought was a good ‘introduction’ to the topic of coding standards in .NET is:

Practical Standards for Microsoft Visual Basic .NET , James Foxall, Microsoft Press.

It covers a good range of topics, including Design, Conventions, Coding Constructs (Formatting Code, Commenting Code, Looping Structures, Exception Handling), Advanced Programming, User Interface Designed, User Input and Notification, Version Control and Source Code control.

It is about 450 pages, so covers a reasonable amount. It isn’t close to being exhaustive, but is a good place to start I found when thinking about the topic.

Cheers

J

The book that I have found and thought was a good ‘introduction’ to the topic of coding standards in .NET is:

Practical Standards for Microsoft Visual Basic .NET , James Foxall, Microsoft Press.

It covers a good range of topics, including Design, Conventions, Coding Constructs (Formatting Code, Commenting Code, Looping Structures, Exception Handling), Advanced Programming, User Interface Designed, User Input and Notification, Version Control and Source Code control.

It is about 450 pages, so covers a reasonable amount. It isn’t close to being exhaustive, but is a good place to start I found when thinking about the topic.

Cheers

J

Depending on what you are doing of course? But if you are doing complicated computations, you would probably create a seperate function or subroutine for the calculation, in this case, you may pass a variable representing the value to be manipulated, rather than a control that contains the value. By doing this, you make your function more re-usable, as it relies only on the data type to be the same (ie. string), and not a particular control type (such as a value from a combo box, or text box, or list box).

Also, it can make the code more obvious as to what you are doing if you are doing calculations on a variable. It may make the code more readable?

Just some thoughts.

Depending on what you are doing of course? But if you are doing complicated computations, you would probably create a seperate function or subroutine for the calculation, in this case, you may pass a variable representing the value to be manipulated, rather than a control that contains the value. By doing this, you make your function more re-usable, as it relies only on the data type to be the same (ie. string), and not a particular control type (such as a value from a combo box, or text box, or list box).

Also, it can make the code more obvious as to what you are doing if you are doing calculations on a variable. It may make the code more readable?

Just some thoughts.

I have found that making sure all my VB6 arrays are 0 based (ie. dim a_strThing(0 to 3) / dim a_strThing(3) … rather than dim a_strThing(1 to 4)). Because VB.NET doesn’t support anything but 0 based arrays, I found if you used anything but this, your program logic could go a bit haywire in places. This is just one little thing amongs the multitude of things that you can do to make life easier, but it is one thing that I found sped up “converting” code.

Incidentally, I “converted” a medium sized application from VB6 to .NET and I was surprised at how little I needed to initially change to get it working (although I have since changed a great deal to ‘optimise’ it for .NET).

J