I wasn't commenting on the return value. I never mentioned that I wasn't
checking for proper return values, I just originally miss quoted the return
value. (Which reminds me of my lawn mower manual which say to read carefully
before operating.)
What I meant by needing better documentation was that I think it needs to
better explain the behavior when the passed in index is not of a record with
the same category as the one passed into the function. Also, no, not all
functions ignore the secret records. And some do or don't depending on the
parameters you pass when you open the database.
Please don't mow my lawn with your lawn mower<g>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Antos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Q: DmSeekRecordInCategory behavior.
>This is one function that needs much better documentation. Doesn't it also
>skip secret records?
i agree that many functions need improved docs (i have not yet unzipped the
3.1 docs, but it sounds like they're better, though).
however, if the return type of a function is Err, it should be very obvious
that you need to check for error returns. (it reminds me of the fine print
on certain items these days, such as "do not use this lawn mower to trim
your hedges. serious bodily injury may occur." you'd think some things
would go without saying, but not always so).
also, don't ALL functions ignore secret records if they are currently being
hidden?
