Hi Gene, yepp, either be very serious about the counterparts, or just issue a thisform.lockscreen = 0 and don't give a shit about that counterparts; just flip it to OFF in any situation.
wOOdy -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: MB Software Solutions, LLC <[email protected]> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2019 00:15 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: AW: Old Andy Kramek trick from WhilFest years ago...I can't recall exactly how he said it Oh, so the Lockscreen = .T. commands along a process path would accumulate and thus you'd need an equal number of offsetting Lockscreen = .F. commands to make things right? That might explain some weirdness I've seen over the years when I had set Lockscreen=.T. in Routine_A but then it called Routine_B which called Routine_C etc and some of those may have also have Lockscreen = .T. commands. I suppose the takeaway there is make sure you have the Lockscreen = .F. in the same routine as its counterpart? On 5/7/2019 6:05 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Maybe it was, that Lockscreen also accepts a numeric 0 instead of .F. > Every lockscreen = .t. increments an internal counter, and every lockscreen = > .F. decrements it. Thus you really need to watch out to always have a > balanced on/off couple count. You can override that with just setting that > counter to 0, and don't care about "have I thought about every exit path in > that module?" > That undocumented(?) feature is helpful if you're doing a lot of > subroutines but don't know if everyone is behaving correctly 😊 > > wOOdy > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ProFox <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von MB Software > Solutions, LLC > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2019 23:33 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: Old Andy Kramek trick from WhilFest years ago...I can't > recall exactly how he said it > > Hi Tracy, > > No, that's not it. I use thisform.lockscreen now. It was something more > "nifty" or "crafty" with his approach. > > I don't have any issues really; was just trying to remember what was "cool" > about his trick/tip that was better than Thisform.refresh. Just curiosity. > > Thanks, > --Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: https://leafe.com/archives This message: > https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/007901d50520$ec780a80$c5681f80$@wondz > inski.de > ** 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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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: https://leafe.com/archives This message: https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected] ** 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.
