At 10:34 2016-11-22, Gene Wirchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello:

     I am using VFP 9, but this may apply to many versions.

I am testing a new printing subsystem. This will require testing each report with a valid configuration and an invalid configuration. I wrote a short, standalone program that tweaks the configuration either way. It is run with
<vfp>
          do tmpprint with <number>
</vfp>

I also wanted to check the parameters. If I do not specify a parameter, that is an error and one easily caught with pcount().

However, if there are more parameters than expected, an error 94 (Must specify additional parameters.) is thrown on the lparameters statement. How do I catch this error considering that nothing gets executed before the lparameters statement is looked at?

It gets odder. Supposedly lparameters takes up to 26 parameters. I am now up to 40, and they all get assigned their specified values. Specifying a 41st parameter in the invocation throws an error 94. Where does it end?

Addendum: In this case, I could break the program up into two programs: one the sets the valid configuration and one that sets an invalid configuration. Neither would require parameters. However, if a parameter is specified to a program without a [l]parameters statement, an error 1234 (No PARAMETER statement is found.) is thrown. (I note the typo in the error message: "PARAMETER" should be "PARAMETERS".)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/2f0dc8d5bcb03cd1588629e590c60f83@mtlp000086
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to