Welcome To The Home Of The Visual FoxPro Experts  
home. signup. forum. archives. search. google. articles. downloads. faq. members. weblogs. file info.
SEARCH THE FOXITE.COM VISUAL FOXPRO FORUM ARCHIVES
Please enter one or more search terms:
search (case insensitive):


order by:


sort:
SEARCH RESULT Results 14126 - 14150 of 22847 for Call. (0.3276021 seconds)


RE: No menu on main VFP window
Thread ID: 42527 j9119 g RE: No menu on main VFP window Sorry, but whether you are going to supply all your users with the registered MS VFP ? Then they should pay to the MS for each VFP package. Usually the developer buys the MS VFP, and he is granted to distribute his APPLICATIONS, not the MS VFP. Therefore usually developer creates the custom menu and call it from the application, like > do menuname.mpr > The standard menu then should gone. > > RELEASE POPUPS _MSYSMENU > Just curious: why do you need it and how are you going to work after that? > Hello to all foxite users, > How can i remove the menu of the main visual foxpro window? > Jast want that to make simple applications for "simple

RE: No objects on form showing
a flag value lcSHFO = lcSHFO + BINTOC(lnFlag, '2RS') && fFlags lcSHFO = lcSHFO + REPLICATE(CHR(0), 12) && Last 3 fields for that structure * Function call lnReturn = SHFileOperation(@lcSHFO) * memory

RE: No objects on form showing
a flag value lcSHFO = lcSHFO + BINTOC(lnFlag, '2RS') && fFlags lcSHFO = lcSHFO + REPLICATE(CHR(0), 12) && Last 3 fields for that structure > * Function call lnReturn = SHFileOperation

RE: No objects on form showing
a flag value lcSHFO = lcSHFO + BINTOC(lnFlag, '2RS') && fFlags lcSHFO = lcSHFO + REPLICATE(CHR(0), 12) && Last 3 fields for that structure > * Function call lnReturn = SHFileOperation

RE: No of Days in month
file. One verification, is it really faster? Yes. It is faster because the exe finds the udf on the first try. Our code does not have to first SET PROCEDURE TO and then call the UDF. Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Tom Saddul RE: No of Days in month > I agree with you Mike but I'm too lazy now to save each function in its own prg file. One verification, is it really faster? > Yes. It is faster because the exe finds the udf on the first try. Our code does not have to first SET PROCEDURE TO and then call the UDF. > Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart! There may be many ways to skin a cat, but there are very few right ways to do it. Thanks Mike. In my apps, i usually put the SET PROCEDURE TO Lib1, Lib2, etc... in the beginning of my main prg file so it is only called once. I understand that the VFP runtime will be looking at those

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Mike Yearwood RE: No of Days in month > Yes. It is faster because the exe finds the udf on the first try. Our code does not have to first SET PROCEDURE TO and then call the UDF. > Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart! There may be many ways to skin a cat, but there are very few right ways to do it. > Thanks Mike. In my apps, i usually put the SET PROCEDURE TO Lib1, Lib2, etc... in the beginning of my main prg file so it is only called once. I understand that the VFP runtime will be looking at those libraries for the function I am calling. I will make a test on this and see if the speed is significant. It used to be a BIG

RE: No of Days in month
to be established so that the call is direct to the function. Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart! There may be many ways to skin a cat, but there are very

RE: No of Days in month
of VFP were not that stupid (I may be wrong). I believe that the SET PROCEDURE TO causes an index of function to be established so that the call is direct to the function. > Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Tony Vignone RE: No of Days in month > Although I have no knowledge of this, I do believe that the implementers of VFP were not that stupid (I may be wrong). I believe that the SET PROCEDURE TO causes an index of function to be established so that the call is direct to the function. > > Hi Tony > I beg to differ. Any "index" of functions still requires a search. The more functions, the slower the search, even if they had used the b-tree structure... implemented VFP I would have supplied direct memory address at compile time, not search. Do you know this, in fact, is not so? I am referring to the final EXE. In my youth, I did much IBM mainframe assembler and all call

RE: No of Days in month
it. VFP probably finds that 99th procedure in a few millisecond. If that matters, then calling BeginOfMonth() style UDFs also matters, instead of a simple (you can call it cryptic) GoMonth(...) line of code. You loose performance as well when you call an UDF. Regards Samir

RE: No of Days in month
matters, instead of a simple (you can call it cryptic) GoMonth(...) line of code. You loose performance as well when you call an UDF. > Regards Samir Trust me. I know that I lose performance by calling a UDF. The whole effort is a balancing act. We, IMO, have to make readable, maintainable, fast systems. The practice of encrypting code defeats 2 of the three. The call of a UDF defeats 1 of the three. If the UDF needs changing the entire app is improved

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Mike Yearwood RE: No of Days in month > Hi Tony > I beg to differ. Any "index" of functions still requires a search. The more functions, the slower the search, even if they had used the b-tree structure, which many would have called "overkill". ;) > Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart! There may be many ways to skin a cat, but there are very few right ways to do it. > > But if I implemented VFP I would have supplied direct memory address at compile time, not search. Do you know this, in fact, is not so? > I am referring to the final EXE. > In my youth, I did much IBM mainframe assembler and all call addresses

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Tony Vignone RE: No of Days in month > > But if I implemented VFP I would have supplied direct memory address at compile time, not search. Do you know this, in fact, is not so? > I am referring to the final EXE. > In my youth, I did much IBM mainframe assembler and all call addresses were resolved at compile time. > Tony > Hi Tony > I do not "know" many things as facts. It is not possible to know without getting input from Calvin Hsia, etc. However, the existence of SET PROCEDURE TO ADDITIVE - at runtime - IMO strongly argues against any direct memory addressing at compile time. VFP is pseudo-compiled. I can use variables and name expressions to build a string for SET PROCEDURE

RE: No of Days in month
were not that stupid (I may be wrong). I believe that the SET PROCEDURE TO causes an index of function to be established so that the call is direct to the function. > Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We have

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Tony Vignone RE: No of Days in month > Although I have no knowledge of this, I do believe that the implementers of VFP were not that stupid (I may be wrong). I believe that the SET PROCEDURE TO causes an index of function to be established so that the call is direct to the function. > > > I think Mike pointed to NameTableIndex (NTI) system in VFP, and yes, more function included more time to find it, that the logic. In this, I agree with Mike. > But...... although we have hundreds of functions, VFP will easy to find it and still faster, because IMO, NTI is like an indexing table/cursor that we know VFP has advantages with. > > Regards, Onytoo You guys know more about the internals

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Jun Tangunan RE: No of Days in month > Although I have no knowledge of this, I do believe that the implementers of VFP were not that stupid (I may be wrong). I believe that the SET PROCEDURE TO causes an index of function to be established so that the call is direct to the function. > > > I think Mike pointed to NameTableIndex (NTI) system in VFP, and yes, more function included more time to find it, that the logic. In this, I agree with Mike. > But...... although we have hundreds of functions, VFP will easy to find it and still faster, because IMO, NTI is like an indexing table/cursor that we know VFP has advantages with. > > Regards, Onytoo That is what I am saying

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Jun Tangunan RE: No of Days in month > > But if I implemented VFP I would have supplied direct memory address at compile time, not search. Do you know this, in fact, is not so? > I am referring to the final EXE. > In my youth, I did much IBM mainframe assembler and all call addresses were resolved at compile time. > Tony > Hi Tony > I do not "know" many things as facts. It is not possible to know without getting input from Calvin Hsia, etc. However, the existence of SET PROCEDURE TO ADDITIVE - at runtime - IMO strongly argues against any direct memory addressing at compile time. VFP is pseudo-compiled. I can use variables and name expressions to build a string for SET PROCEDURE

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Paul Gibson RE: No of Days in month > > But if I implemented VFP I would have supplied direct memory address at compile time, not search. Do you know this, in fact, is not so? > I am referring to the final EXE. > In my youth, I did much IBM mainframe assembler and all call addresses were resolved at compile time. > Tony > Hi Tony > I do not "know" many things as facts. It is not possible to know without getting input from Calvin Hsia, etc... would see if the name was already in SET("PROCEDURE"), if so don't do anything else, if not then call SET PROCEDURE TO ... ADDITIVE appropriately. I would like to point out that I don't recommend doing this as a standard, I don't

RE: No of Days in month
don't do anything else, if not then call SET PROCEDURE TO ... ADDITIVE appropriately. I would like to point out that I don't recommend doing this as a standard, I don't like it personally but it was a fantastic experiment. I... and over again that's a huge waste and probably poor form for the original coder but I wasn't just replacing bad examples of the call, there were plenty of perfectly fine examples of the call. That experiment was one of the few

RE: No of Days in month
the coder wanted to add to SET PROCEDURE TO ... ADDITIVE. The PRG would see if the name was already in SET("PROCEDURE"), if so don't do anything else, if not then call SET PROCEDURE TO ... ADDITIVE appropriately. I would like... examples of the call, there were plenty of perfectly fine examples of the call. That experiment was one of the few times I discovered something about VFP myself that has truly shocked me. I think there were a number of factors

RE: No of Days in month
Thread ID: 320379 Paul Gibson RE: No of Days in month It has been said by some people that the EXE is the fruit of your labour and the success of your application may live or die on how fast it runs. If users are calling the support line to tell you that the application is taking x number of minutes to do a particular task they aren't really interested in whether it is a very intensive procedure and (you think) you've made it as fast as you can, they obviously want it to be faster. As much as I don't like the method of my AddToProcList() program it produced tremendous speed improvements at the time and it also proved that SET PROCEDURE can be a very slow call in certain circumstances. I like to work in a way

RE: No of Days in month
longer than calling a UDF. On top of that, methods are slower to call than UDFs. Properly constructed objects are invaluable. Mike Yearwood Microsoft MVP Visual FoxPro 2008, 2009 We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart

RE: No Parameter statement is found
...got it enabled.... Now, how do I reference the oFormRef in my menu commands? I want to call a click method of a button. in one of my menu options, I have: oFormRef.command2.click() It returns an error, saying oFormRef

RE: No Parameter statement is found
...got it enabled.... Now, how do I reference the oFormRef in my menu commands? I want to call a click method of a button. > in one of my menu options, I have: oFormRef.command2.click() > It returns an error, saying oFormRef


Result Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914