Hi all
This is in reaction (response is perhaps not quite the right term) to
solving the problem of returning an array from a form without the use of
custom objects. It should work from anywhere (including calling the
form from the command window). Reading previous threads (which have
To: ProFox
Subject: Returning one (or more) values from a form, including arrnys -
non-OOP
Hi all
This is in reaction (response is perhaps not quite the right term) to
solving the problem of returning an array from a form without the use of
custom objects. It should work from anywhere (including
:13
To: ProFox
Subject: Returning one (or more) values from a form, including arrnys -
non-OOP
Hi all
This is in reaction (response is perhaps not quite the right term) to
solving the problem of returning an array from a form without the use of
custom objects. It should work from anywhere
Dave Crozier wrote:
Paul,
Just as a digression, why would you want to use plain array as opposed to a
property of a custom object as one such property could actually be the
array?
I find that ysing the custom object method really does allow a greater
degree of flexibility as named parameteres
Sent: 01 November 2006 11:54
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Returning one (or more) values from a form, including arrnys-
non-OOP
Dave Crozier wrote:
Paul,
Just as a digression, why would you want to use plain array as opposed
to a property of a custom object as one such property could
Dominic Burford wrote:
Whether returning multiple properties from an object, or passing
multiple properties to an object, we use the same mechanism. We use a
Property Bag object. This is similar to a SCATTER NAME object and is an
object which contains properties relating to each item of
Dominic Burford wrote:
Whether returning multiple properties from an object, or passing
multiple properties to an object, we use the same mechanism. We use a
Property Bag object. This is similar to a SCATTER NAME object and is an
object which contains properties relating to each item of
Ed Leafe wrote:
On Nov 1, 2006, at 8:36 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
I think collections would be a consideration as well, if you're using
at least VFP8.
Gotta get in a plug for Python here: this is one of the cool
things that is frustrating when switching back to VFP. You can
On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Paul Newton wrote:
first, last, phone = myCustomerFunc()
= myCustomerFunc(@first,@last,@phone) ?
Sure, that's possible, but awkward, IMO. The function isn't
returning values, but modifying references. In Python, you could
write code with this function as:
Ed Leafe wrote:
info = myCustomerFunc()
print info
('Ed', 'Leafe', '911')
print info[0]
'Ed'
That is cool. I wish VFP could show the Collection's contents in the
debugger similar to your example above rather than just saying Object
and just the counts, etc.
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
MB
= myCustomerFunc(@first,@last,@phone) ?
The function isn't returning values, but modifying references.
I'll wager at least a pint that under the hood:
varX = myFn(z)
passes a pointer to varX which is used by myFn to update the value of varX
semantic
so what's the difference?
/semantic
Andrew
On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Andy Davies wrote:
I'll wager at least a pint that under the hood:
varX = myFn(z)
passes a pointer to varX which is used by myFn to update the value
of varX
I'll take that wager. In a dynamic language such as Fox or Python,
varX could be a brand-new
12 matches
Mail list logo
