MCA,
Ahh.. Some feedback...
I was hoping that you would not take that way. I was/am not trying to pick on you or be unfair. The thought process was taking your current code and make it better (That is why we are here). If I didn't like this code, I would not have taken the initiative to start playing around with it. There may come a question, "shouldn't you leave it to the author?" Sure, if he has time!
If you take it as a challenge, that is very true. I was hoping that you would take this as constructive criticism.
To cite a couple of examples where I have solicited feedback for criticism -
READEXCEL UDF
SQLODBC UDF
As a result, I know that I have and probably will continue to publicly fall down, but I pick up and keep going. ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
IMHO, we should challenge ourselves or raise the bar each day. Maybe it is a strange philosophy of mine, but "how can we do it better?"
To respond to your comments:
quote:
%windir% directory.
the other location is only for backwards compatibility.
For what? Windows 3.x? Is there an OS that we have discussed that does not use this environment variable?
quote:
of course the amount of information can reduced. for us it are only debugging issues.
to claim a reducing with 396,89% isn't fair.
It was meant as humour. I know that we have a number of people that participate in the KiXGolf Challenges. The intent being, you take current code and squeeze it down without losing functionality.
quote:
(2)why over-use parenthises? indeed to make it more "bullet-proof" and to get
a better layout in our opinion.
If we can eliminate them, it looks and is more professional. Shouldn't this be a BKM or "Best Known Method?" This should be a practice that we as a community embrace! To quote one a post seen somewhat recently, "you should make your code accomodate the client, not client accomodate the code.
You have pointed out some variables that are not referenced. Isn't this supposed to be a "work in progress?" I think I can reciprocate that with you as well.
quote:
btw: another important issue was and is "we are using same scripts for different kixtart
releases. also the kixtart 3.6x releases".
So some new functions, commands or macros can't be used in our scripts.
OK, that is nice, but why not going forward incorporate the new features?
This really begs the question, then.. Are you going back in and re-writing the code with the 3.6 version, for example and incorporating the Terminal Server (Drive M:) that we have talked about before? Or the DLLs that Les (if memory serves) brings up with Win 9x?
Shouldn't this be viewed in a positive manner? Take what is already there and make it better. Yes, the current versions and code do work.
Kind Regards,
Kent
