conclusion being compobj won't work as spec'd ?
One would think that VFP 8 would have addresSed this.... :-(
RR
-----Original Message-----
From: vfpmcp At mbsoftwaresolutions D.O.T com
[mailto:vfpmcp@mbsoftwaresolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, Jun 12, 03 12:57 PM
To: profoxtech At leafe D.O.T com
Subject: RE: VFP7: Checking for Changes Made by the User
http://leafe.com/archives/showMsg/83615
------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:48:01 -0500, "Chuck Urwiler" <chuck@eps-software.com>
wrote:
> This was discussed a while ago, so search the archives.
>
> As I recall, it has something to do with a property being set to null in
> one of the objects and getting an unexpected result back from CompObj...
>
> -Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Baird [mailto:jbaird At IDPNET D.O.T com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:31 PM
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: RE: VFP7: Checking for Changes Made by the User
>
>
> But there is a caveat.... I don't remember exactly, but it has to do
> with NULL values in some fields. They will skew the compobj return
> value.
>
> I'll have to check on it...
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Randy Roberts |
