A question generated by the "pig"

[CDAY]

I thought I sent this yesterday, but apparently did not.
--------

John,

You are correct as usual!

I had  toked the brw_window  table while changing the 4.8
and 5.x lines, but had NOT toked the input table. I never
even looked at the input table...

With both toked,  it functions fine in 4.8 or 5.x in *clerk

My message came back to me on the list and your messages
came both to me and the list.

Charlie




John Esak wrote:
> Charlie,
> This is a first question that has to be asked. Did you go into rcabe to
> change the 4.8 lines to the 5.0 lines. If not, and you only used dcabe, then
> there were no .tok tables made and that is why the rclerk version won't
> work.
> 
> Let me know.
> 
> John
> 
> P.S. - This is one of the messages that I got in my inbox as john at valar.com
> but it did NOT come through the list to me...
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: CDAY [mailto:gliderman.one at verizon.net]
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:52 AM
>>To: john at valar.com
>>Cc: Fplist (E-mail)
>>Subject: Re: A question generated by the "pig"
>>
>>
>>John,
>>
>>Using either the 4.8 or 5.x lines, all works perfectly
>>running ver. 5.0.14 Dclerk on XP ver. 5.1.2600.
>>
>>It does NOT function running Rclerk
>>the screen appears, the prompts at bottom do NOT display,
>>T  does nothing,  X  exits the screen.
>>
>>Charlie Day
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>John Esak wrote:
>>
>>>Hello pig lovers... :-),
>>>
>>>Well, I've got a really strange one today. I hope to contact fp support
>>>and/or Ken directly via email or phone today about this, but I
>>
>>was hoping
>>
>>>for a little more confirmation first.  Actually, many, many  of
>>
>>you have now
>>
>>>bought the "Pig in a Poke" code.  I have spoken with lots of
>>
>>you in the FP
>>
>>>Room and on the phone, and I've gotten lots of emails.   It has
>>
>>all been so
>>
>>>positive and fun because everyone is so excited about having
>>
>>this process
>>
>>>at their fingertips, ready to drop in to their own programs and
>>
>>have it work
>>
>>>for them in their own unique ways. (yes, I know a shameless plug... but,
>>>I've always been influenced by the "Car Guys". :-)
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, the real reason for this note... One, just one of the many
>>>Windows sites had a problem. I haven't heard the slightest
>>
>>hiccough over the
>>
>>>*nix stuff yet, but that is why I am asking here and now.
>>
>>Anyway, on this
>>
>>>particular XP SP2 site, I had to Remote Desktop in and fix it up. After
>>>quite a long time, about 40 minutes, and some accidental printing of the
>>>input table the person was using... I kept forgetting that I
>>
>>was using dcabe
>>
>>>and hitting Y, Y as if I was in rcabe!  Yikes, he must have had
>>
>>hardcopy all
>>
>>>around his place... :-)  Sorry... :-)   Well, I finally found
>>
>>the problem.
>>
>>>He had correctly commented out the 4.8 processing lines (all
>>
>>two of them)
>>
>>>and uncommented the 5.0 processing lines (the same just two of them).  I
>>>hadn't realized this at first, and the table kept blowing up.  It kept
>>>blowing up in that horrible way that just dumps you back to the calling
>>>command with no error at all.  Very frustrating!
>>>
>>>I don't remember exactly how and where, but I managed to put in
>>
>>a "debug on"
>>
>>>and some breakpoints in that showed the error before dumping me
>>
>>out to the
>>
>>>real world.  It turns out that the variable "BrowseFile" which
>>
>>I use on the
>>
>>>lookup browse line was mysteriously and for absolutely NO
>>
>>reason becoming
>>
>>>null... cleared, BLANK!!!  God, I was happy to find this, because I knew
>>>right away it was the problem of having three declare'd
>>
>>variables or more on
>>
>>>the browse lookup line that was causing this.    I simply put
>>
>>back the 4.8
>>
>>>version of the lines involved, all two of them, and uncommented
>>
>>the two 5.+
>>
>>>version lines, and the thing started working perfectly, as it should.
>>>
>>>The impossible thing to understand is that this system happens to be a
>>>5.0.14 system. At least that is what PFVER says when you go
>>
>>into  dclerk!
>>
>>>How can it work on umpteen 5.0.14 systems perfectly as always,
>>
>>but not on
>>
>>>this one particular system.   So, I guess I'm asking all of you
>>
>>who have the
>>
>>>code to try it out with the two 5.0 lines instead of the 4.8
>>
>>lines (which is
>>
>>>the way I sent it out by default).  I didn't want this old bug
>>
>>biting anyone
>>
>>>up front, so I felt using the 4.8 method as the default would
>>
>>be smartest.
>>
>>>This one case just happens the person saw the 5.0 lines and correctly
>>>uncommented them and commented out the 4.8 ones as he should have done.
>>>
>>>Now, I just thought of one tiny thing... although I can't
>>
>>believe it to be
>>
>>>true, or even to be the cause, but it might... What if his
>>
>>dclerk was 5.014
>>
>>>as it read so clearly and his dcabe was 4.8 or something like
>>
>>that?  Would
>>
>>>this cause the multiple declare'd variables on a browse lookup
>>
>>to fail at
>>
>>>runtime???   Sir, and you know who you are, can you check your
>>
>>dcabe for me
>>
>>>when and if you see this?  Meanwhile, I'll give you a call
>>
>>about it also.
>>
>>>But in the case of curiosity and my sanity, I would love to
>>
>>know if anyone
>>
>>>experiences this same problem  with the two lines of 5.0 code and a new
>>>5.0.14 system. I would be amazed if you do because I had debugged and
>>>pre-tested this code for days before putting it out with a gentleman in
>>>Australia who worked it over thoroughly on his 5.0.14 XP system. Since
>>>finding this strangeness yesterday, I've managed to get
>>
>>confirmation that
>>
>>>several other XP 5.014 systems work fine, too.  But it
>>
>>certainly does NOT
>>
>>>work on the one in question... so what gives? Getting more
>>
>>feedback would be
>>
>>>great. Just let's double check, because how could one person's
>>
>>system do it
>>
>>>and not others. Either the bug has been fixed or it hasn't, right?
>>>
>>>By the way, I thoroughly checked the environment of the machine and saw
>>>nothing strange. This gentleman is willing to have FP Tech
>>
>>login with RDP
>>
>>>and see what I saw, he or I can make those arrangements if that
>>
>>can happen.
>>
>>>So let us know, now that lots of you have the code... try it
>>
>>out as the demo
>>
>>>and just chime in if there is anything odd at all. I don't
>>
>>expect it, but
>>
>>>then, you never know.
>>>
>>>
>>>John Esak
>>>Visit The FP Room www.tinyurl.com/yuag7 24/7
>>>
>>>Take a demo ride on "the pig" at www.valar.com/single you'll be
>>
>>happy you
>>
>>>did. There is a movie describing the whole thing.
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Filepro-list mailing list
>>>Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>>>http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>