f



'!' vs. '.'

Is there an advantage to using the '!' notation to represent form/
control relationships?  (eg. Me!text1 vs Me.text1)

I am currently using the '.' notation exclusively (for code completion
in the VB Editor), but much of the high-quality code that I've seen
(in Duane Hookom's Query-by-Form db, for example) uses the other.

0
4/6/2007 12:59:28 AM
comp.databases.ms-access 42670 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

4 Replies
2189 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 47

Here's one opinion for you: http://doc.advisor.com/doc/05352

robert.waters wrote:
>Is there an advantage to using the '!' notation to represent form/
>control relationships?  (eg. Me!text1 vs Me.text1)
>
>I am currently using the '.' notation exclusively (for code completion
>in the VB Editor), but much of the high-quality code that I've seen
>(in Duane Hookom's Query-by-Form db, for example) uses the other.

-- 
HTH - RuralGuy (RG for short) acXP WinXP Pro
Please post back to this forum so all may benefit.

Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/databases-ms-access/200704/1

0
ruralguy
4/6/2007 1:32:37 AM
Here's my $0.02 worth on this.
I tend to copy the notation style and naming conventions that I see being 
used in the Help files.

That would be Me![text1] for a control on a form. I am of the belief that 
this notation explicitly refers to a control itself rather than a field in 
the form's recordset.

Here's an example:
I have a parts inventory app that uses a "Line" code, which is usually a 
3-character abbreviation for a brand name, and is the name of both the field 
name and the bound text-box control on many of my forms. Because the word 
"Line" is one of those not-quite-a-reserved-word things ... so Access can 
get confused and pissy if I don't wrap it in square brackets.

The "[Square Brackets]"  format also allows for control names that may have 
spaces in them. (Not that I am in the habit of doing that.)
Another benefit (to me anyway) is that I am so used to using this format 
that I do it by habit, so control references in my code really "stand out".

Like you, I will often allow the supplied "." format from the code editor to 
get the spelling right (lazy), but then I go back and change it to the "bang 
and brackets" style before compiling.


-- 
-- 
HTH,
Don
=============================
E-Mail (if you must) My.Name@Telus.net

Disclaimer:
Professional PartsPerson
Amateur Database Programmer {:o)

I'm an Access97 user, so all posted code samples are  also Access97- based 
unless otherwise noted.

==========================================================================


"robert.waters" <robert.waters@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1175821167.981097.263530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Is there an advantage to using the '!' notation to represent form/
> control relationships?  (eg. Me!text1 vs Me.text1)
>
> I am currently using the '.' notation exclusively (for code completion
> in the VB Editor), but much of the high-quality code that I've seen
> (in Duane Hookom's Query-by-Form db, for example) uses the other.
> 


0
4/6/2007 2:12:19 AM
I don't feel there's an advantage, just preference. Some feel the
Intelisense is an advantage, but for me, I prefer refering to any
control on a form, from that form, using the '!'. When refering to
form controls from other modules, I think the '.' is a required
method. I've also heard arguments about increased likelyhood of errors
or corruption using one over the other, but I haven't come across that
happening yet.

0
storrboy (404)
4/6/2007 3:41:31 AM
On Apr 5, 10:12 pm, "Don Leverton"
<leveriteNoJunkM...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Here's my $0.02 worth on this.
> I tend to copy the notation style and naming conventions that I see being
> used in the Help files.
>
> That would be Me![text1] for a control on a form. I am of the belief that
> this notation explicitly refers to a control itself rather than a field in
> the form's recordset.
>
> Here's an example:
> I have a parts inventory app that uses a "Line" code, which is usually a
> 3-character abbreviation for a brand name, and is the name of both the field
> name and the bound text-box control on many of my forms. Because the word
> "Line" is one of those not-quite-a-reserved-word things ... so Access can
> get confused and pissy if I don't wrap it in square brackets.
>
> The "[Square Brackets]"  format also allows for control names that may have
> spaces in them. (Not that I am in the habit of doing that.)
> Another benefit (to me anyway) is that I am so used to using this format
> that I do it by habit, so control references in my code really "stand out".
>
> Like you, I will often allow the supplied "." format from the code editor to
> get the spelling right (lazy), but then I go back and change it to the "bang
> and brackets" style before compiling.
>
> --
> --
> HTH,
> Don
> =============================
> E-Mail (if you must) My.N...@Telus.net
>
> Disclaimer:
> Professional PartsPerson
> Amateur Database Programmer {:o)
>
> I'm an Access97 user, so all posted code samples are  also Access97- based
> unless otherwise noted.
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> "robert.waters" <robert.wat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175821167.981097.263530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Is there an advantage to using the '!' notation to represent form/
> > control relationships?  (eg. Me!text1 vs Me.text1)
>
> > I am currently using the '.' notation exclusively (for code completion
> > in the VB Editor), but much of the high-quality code that I've seen
> > (in Duane Hookom's Query-by-Form db, for example) uses the other.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

IMHO one should NEVER name a control the same as a field in the
datasource.  Poor naming convention.  In fact in my convention, all
controls are prefixed with a 1 or 2 letters that describe the type of
control followed by the field name so that a text box that displays a
field called Address1 would be called tbAddress1.  I rarely if ever
'reuse' a name.

0
jebva (185)
4/6/2007 3:44:31 PM
Reply: