On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Mike Woodworth wrote:
Ok... i got to bring up the counter point here. how many of us
really roll our codebases from one version of RB to the next
without having to track down new issues and code around them? so
heres my ugly ugly solution (this will take a few releases of RB):
add a folderitem.ubound method which returns count -1.
Ubound always returns the highest address of any array of items. Why
should it break that concept?
deprecate folderitem.count (but obviously keep it for old code)
That would be very confusing.
define and *well* document that folderitem.item(0) returns the same
item as folderitem.item(folderitem.count)
Are you implying substituting a calculated number variable for a
folderitem at folderitem.item(0).
I do agree, however, that .Count is not always consistent unless you
understand that it doesn't include item(0) because it is a directory.
now, we can start using folderitem as 0 based, old code continues
to run, and we can slowly build up a year or so of versions of RB
which will play well with code once .count is removed entirely.
I just don't see that. In a multidimensional array, for example, the
0 item refers to the first element of the dimension. If that were
missing in a Folderitem directory array then where would it go?
Terry
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
