Ok. here is a fix for the event object.

http://si.fileburst.com/OOPic612.exe.zip

But there is a hitch. For expediency sake, I did not do the typical
four week testing phase I usually do to see if this fix affected any
of the other objects.

To see what changed, type this code in:

--------------------
a As oEvent

Sub a_Code()
a.Operate = 1
End Sub
--------------------

Compile it in both 6.1.1 and in 6.1.2, look at the generated opp
codes to see the difference.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 08:58 PM 8/4/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
>But there is a hitch. For expediency sake, I did not do the typical
>four week testing phase I usually do to see if this fix affected any
>of the other objects.

It doesn't take four weeks to do regression testing on a simple patch
like this. I could automate the generation of 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 EEPROM
images from every OOPic source file I can lay my hands on AND diff
them to verify that only oEvent handler addresses were changed and
have a definitive answer in less than an hour. If I can do it, so can you.

Your comment is disingenuous and serves as a poor excuse for why this
patch took so many months to materialize.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Wow, I will bring the new rope...

We, as a policy try to test product out for 4 weeks.. that is all he
is alluding to. You wanted it fast and you got it. If it causes any
issues let me know and we will address them.

I cannot run a test on this version due to cough cough dial up
connection and download time. I don't get to town until Wed. and hope
you, the users can get it tested real quick. If not I will download
and test Wed. during my robotics class (good project for the kiddos)

Good sidebar - yes, there are those of us that live in places where
we still surf by telegraph... In my case about 20 miles from any town
in an area where we can't even get sat. internet due to a dispute
over some coverage or another. Heck our cell phones only work about
three miles out in a wheat field...

Ted
Savage Innovations

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
>
> At 08:58 PM 8/4/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
> >But there is a hitch. For expediency sake, I did not do the
typical
> >four week testing phase I usually do to see if this fix affected
any
> >of the other objects.
>
> It doesn't take four weeks to do regression testing on a simple
patch
> like this. I could automate the generation of 6.1.1 and 6.1.2
EEPROM
> images from every OOPic source file I can lay my hands on AND diff
> them to verify that only oEvent handler addresses were changed and
> have a definitive answer in less than an hour. If I can do it, so
can you.
>
> Your comment is disingenuous and serves as a poor excuse for why
this
> patch took so many months to materialize.
> ...Andy
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 10:31 PM 8/4/2008, theo570 wrote:
>Wow, I will bring the new rope...

Indeed...
>We, as a policy try to test product out for 4 weeks.. that is all he
>is alluding to.

No, he is implying (deliberately or not) that this fix should've had
a 4 week test and that given the company's current situation, it's
why the users had to wait so long for such a simple fix.
> You wanted it fast and you got it.

No, it took many months.
>Good sidebar - yes, there are those of us that live in places where
>we still surf by telegraph... In my case about 20 miles from any town
>in an area where we can't even get sat. internet due to a dispute
>over some coverage or another. Heck our cell phones only work about
>three miles out in a wheat field...

Been there, done that, we feel your pain.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> I could automate the generation of 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 EEPROM
> images from every OOPic source file I can lay my hands on AND diff
> them to verify that only event handler addresses were changed and
> have a definitive answer in less than an hour.
> ...Andy

In less than an hour? WOW!

Your hired!

Here is a file that lists of all the properties that need to have a
definitive answer.

I need to know how the init routines and object creation routines.
(the two routines that were patched) affect each of these properties.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MMKXSH2T3dkDc4COWfb3vnAjJiNOtgs6dWcf2Am3P
Edo0vW1WeTlgVNw3W7gXeUsMlUCNNsByt8oKCGtbERzJAw4Kbns9ZX7bBc/props.txt

The list only has 7,366 (seven thousand three hundred and sixty six)
individual properties to be checked.

I will be taking down the unverified 6.1.2 executable until you can
send me a report outlining the affect those routines had on each of
these properties. Note that in the case of testing hardware objects,
you will need to plug in the test jig for each piece of hardware to
verify that they are still operational. (I have them all if you need
me to send them to you.)

If, by chance you determine that there are adverse results, notify me
immediately and I will get a new fix out to you - at which time you
will need to start over to be sure that the new fix does not change
anything.

In case you are wondering. Yes, this is what I did before releasing
6.1.1, but it took me a lot longer than it will take you.

One last detail... I need to know how much to pay you for this... How
much do you make in an hour?

Scott Savage.
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> No, it took many months.

I guess that one is a matter of perspective. 3 days ago you were not
getting it at all...

Regardless of how or why we arrived here we have arrived. There is a
patch and we need you, the community, to give it a quick once over.

If all goes well I am going to try and make a Vista compatable
version real quick.

Ted
Savage Innovations

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
>
> At 10:31 PM 8/4/2008, theo570 wrote:
> >Wow, I will bring the new rope...
>
> Indeed...
> >We, as a policy try to test product out for 4 weeks.. that is all
he
> >is alluding to.
>
> No, he is implying (deliberately or not) that this fix should've
had
> a 4 week test and that given the company's current situation, it's
> why the users had to wait so long for such a simple fix.
> > You wanted it fast and you got it.
>
> No, it took many months.
> >Good sidebar - yes, there are those of us that live in places where
> >we still surf by telegraph... In my case about 20 miles from any
town
> >in an area where we can't even get sat. internet due to a dispute
> >over some coverage or another. Heck our cell phones only work about
> >three miles out in a wheat field...
>
> Been there, done that, we feel your pain.
> ...Andy
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Andrew Porrett has convinced me that posting the Very 6.1.2 without
testing how the patch affects all the other properties was a bad idea.

It will be re-posted after he tests all 7366 properties. It should be
up in an hour or so.

Scott Savage.
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Ummm Andy, it has been an hour... I say even money the rest of the
users would really appreciate the ability to download the compiler.

I really did not think he would do it. I am almost shocked... I did not
think he had it in him. Funnier than hell though, I wish it were my
idea. I have that hardcore Marine Corps type of humor though....

Ted

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, "scottmsavage" wrote:
>
> Andrew Porrett has convinced me that posting the Very 6.1.2 without
> testing how the patch affects all the other properties was a bad idea.
>
> It will be re-posted after he tests all 7366 properties. It should
be
> up in an hour or so.
>
> Scott Savage.
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Mr. Savage:

I like your product. My students like your product. They and I have=20=20
spent money on your product. I guess that makes us customers. What we=20=20
asked for is only what you had already promised. I am sorry you feel=20=20
put upon and that our annoyance is unreasonable.

Do you want us to buy your future products? If so, sometimes it pays=20=20
to be nice even when you don't feel like it.

BTW, thank you for keeping your promise to come out with a fix for the=20=20
event bug. I appreciate it.

--

Brian Lloyd Granite Bay Montessori
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com 9330 Sierra College Blvd.
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) Roseville, CA 95661, USA
http://www.gbmontessori.com

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry

PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:03 PM, theo570 wrote:

> Ummm Andy, it has been an hour... I say even money the rest of the
> users would really appreciate the ability to download the compiler.
>
> I really did not think he would do it. I am almost shocked... I did=20=20
> not
> think he had it in him. Funnier than hell though, I wish it were my
> idea. I have that hardcore Marine Corps type of humor though....

You two bring new meaning to the term, "customer relations." I am=20=20
truly amazed.

--

Brian Lloyd Granite Bay Montessori
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com 9330 Sierra College Blvd.
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) Roseville, CA 95661, USA
http://www.gbmontessori.com

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry

PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

It will be back when Andy gets the test done or Scott cools down,=20
whatever happens first.

Like I said, I didn't do it but I support it 100%. It is amazing=20
because Scott is such a typical "nice guy" and I am the typical ()=20
well you get the point.

If Andy had took a shot at me about my abilities it would never be=20
posted again.

Customer relations goes both ways.

Ted

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>=20
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:03 PM, theo570 wrote:
>=20
> > Ummm Andy, it has been an hour... I say even money the rest of the
> > users would really appreciate the ability to download the=20
compiler.
> >
> > I really did not think he would do it. I am almost shocked... I=20
did=20=20
> > not
> > think he had it in him. Funnier than hell though, I wish it were=20
my
> > idea. I have that hardcore Marine Corps type of humor though....
>=20
> You two bring new meaning to the term, "customer relations." I am=20=20
> truly amazed.
>=20
> --
>=20
> Brian Lloyd Granite Bay Montessori
> brian AT gbmontessori DOT com 9330 Sierra College Blvd.
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) Roseville, CA 95661, USA
> http://www.gbmontessori.com
>=20
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty=20
things . . .
> =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
>=20
> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A=20
1B6C
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 11:51 PM 8/4/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
>Your (sic) hired!

No thanks.
>Here is a file that lists of all the properties that need to have a
>definitive answer.
>
>I need to know how the init routines and object creation routines.
>(the two routines that were patched) affect (sic) each of these properties.
>
>http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MMKXSH2T3dkDc4COWfb3vnAjJiNOtgs6dWcf2Am3P
>Edo0vW1WeTlgVNw3W7gXeUsMlUCNNsByt8oKCGtbERzJAw4Kbns9ZX7bBc/props.txt

Broken link.
>The list only has 7,366 (seven thousand three hundred and sixty six)
>individual properties to be checked.
>
>I will be taking down the unverified 6.1.2 executable until you can
>send me a report outlining the affect (sic) those routines had on each of
>these properties. Note that in the case of testing hardware objects,
>you will need to plug in the test jig for each piece of hardware to
>verify that they are still operational.

Bullshit. You need to verify that the patch to the compiler makes the
necessary changes, and only those changes, to the EEPROM images that
the compiler creates. The compiler is essentially a filter - it
takes source code in and produces (among other things) a binary image
that gets uploaded to an OOPic EEPROM. When you already have known
good (or almost good in the case of oEvent) binaries that were
created by the 6.1.1 compiler, verification that the 6.1.2 compiler
is doing its job DOES NOT involve plugging in hardware test jigs. An
OOPic user already provided an oEvent patch utility and he didn't
have to resort to hardware hacking to verify it.

Where is your regression testing? Don't you already have a large
suite of test programs that you feed through the compiler when you
make changes so that you can verify that code generation isn't
adversely affected? If you make a change to how oh, let's say,
serial port code is generated, can't you quickly verify that programs
that DON'T use serial port objects are completely unaffected? If not, why not?
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 01:03 AM 8/5/2008, theo570 wrote:
>Ummm Andy, it has been an hour... I say even money the rest of the
>users would really appreciate the ability to download the compiler.

Scott has shown his true colors and now you are doing the same. And
your customers are watching. Keep up the good work.

BTW, what would my, or anyone else's, motivation be to work for tards
who act like you two do? And don't think that any of the members
here aren't going to see right through your lame attempts to make me
the villain in this mess you created. I'll be nice and bring you up
to speed here: besides helping users here from time to time, I have
written and shared with everyone:

- C syntax preprocessor; allows users to write OOPic code using
real C syntax, not the quasi-C that the compiler uses; supports C
directives like #define and #include; provides local scope for
variables defined inside functions (just like real C); supports real
function calls (foo() rather than just foo), real return(value)
statements, rather than the OOPic funcname=value; return form; string
pointer variables (is that even in V6?), plus about a dozen other
useful features.

- DOS-based OOPic program uploader/downloader

- disassembler; Lost your source code? Just download the binary
from your OOPic's EEPROM and run it through the disassembler. Or
just curious as to what the compiled code looks like and the view
provided by the compiler isn't very helpful? Just feed your .oex
file to the disassembler.
Further, when whatever site Scott was using to host beta compiler
downloads was having issues (like exceeded bandwidth limits), I
hosted the files on my own web space.
>I really did not think he would do it. I am almost shocked... I did not
>think he had it in him. Funnier than hell though, I wish it were my
>idea. I have that hardcore Marine Corps type of humor though....

Yep, great management skills he's got there. Probably explains why
his projects aren't doing so well.

So how long until he reverses his "removed for testing"
stance? History shows that what you guys say one day will be
worthless the next day. Besides, his "threat" is meaningless, since
users who have already downloaded the file will share it.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 01:38 AM 8/5/2008, theo570 wrote:
>It will be back when Andy gets the test done or Scott cools down,
>whatever happens first.

Do you think anyone cares at this point? Scott doesn't hold the only copy.
>If Andy had took (sic) a shot at me about my abilities

I didn't take any shots at his abilities. In fact, I said "If I can
do it, so can you."

What I called him on was his claim that doing the job right would've
been a MAJOR undertaking that his company couldn't afford. Nobody is
buying that excuse, but feel free to keep on shovelling it.

Nice strawman though - keep 'em coming.
> it would never be posted again.

Oh, you are too funny tonight. So if $randomuser upset you, your
response would be to go cry in the corner with your toy and refuse to
share it? While my responses in this thread haven't been the most
pleasant, they have all been in response to the boneheaded comments
you two have made, and the insight in to how you two think and
operate that the other members are gaining makes it all worthwhile.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I can't say how long it will be down Andy, he wont tell me either.

Yup, you have done some good work. What does that mean exactly?

I would say the stance of dogging a guys efforts was not probably the
best choice now was it? He stopped doing what he was doing (stuff
that pays) to try and redeem on a promise, he did that. In order to
save time he basically said "you test it" (meaning the comm.). He
never said that was it did he? If it is broken we will fix it more.

Now lets see, oh yea.. now you have resulted to name calling. That is
a sure fire way to get the compiler put back up.

So who is the villain here? Scott or I never resulted to calling you
a name did we? We did not second guess your work did we? We did not
even tell you how to do your work.

As far as I am concerned Scott was nice about it. I do not know when
he will put it back up but I bet an apology would go a long way. You
can dog the guy for missing a deadline, thats cool. You can even dog
the product, but you don't ask for something then complain cause it
does not suit you. He says it should work so save your complaints
until you either try it or test it.

Keep in mind my previous predicament. I don't have a copy of the new
version either. I really need one to test on... yup, even I can't
have a copy.

Ted

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
>
> At 01:03 AM 8/5/2008, theo570 wrote:
> >Ummm Andy, it has been an hour... I say even money the rest of the
> >users would really appreciate the ability to download the compiler.
>
> Scott has shown his true colors and now you are doing the same.
And
> your customers are watching. Keep up the good work.
>
> BTW, what would my, or anyone else's, motivation be to work for
tards
> who act like you two do? And don't think that any of the members
> here aren't going to see right through your lame attempts to make
me
> the villain in this mess you created. I'll be nice and bring you
up
> to speed here: besides helping users here from time to time, I have
> written and shared with everyone:
>
> - C syntax preprocessor; allows users to write OOPic code using
> real C syntax, not the quasi-C that the compiler uses; supports C
> directives like #define and #include; provides local scope for
> variables defined inside functions (just like real C); supports
real
> function calls (foo() rather than just foo), real return(value)
> statements, rather than the OOPic funcname=value; return form;
string
> pointer variables (is that even in V6?), plus about a dozen other
> useful features.
>
> - DOS-based OOPic program uploader/downloader
>
> - disassembler; Lost your source code? Just download the binary
> from your OOPic's EEPROM and run it through the disassembler. Or
> just curious as to what the compiled code looks like and the view
> provided by the compiler isn't very helpful? Just feed your .oex
> file to the disassembler.
> Further, when whatever site Scott was using to host beta compiler
> downloads was having issues (like exceeded bandwidth limits), I
> hosted the files on my own web space.
> >I really did not think he would do it. I am almost shocked... I
did not
> >think he had it in him. Funnier than hell though, I wish it were my
> >idea. I have that hardcore Marine Corps type of humor though....
>
> Yep, great management skills he's got there. Probably explains why
> his projects aren't doing so well.
>
> So how long until he reverses his "removed for testing"
> stance? History shows that what you guys say one day will be
> worthless the next day. Besides, his "threat" is meaningless,
since
> users who have already downloaded the file will share it.
> ...Andy
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 02:58 AM 8/5/2008, theo570 wrote:
>I can't say how long it will be down Andy, he wont tell me either.

Who cares? It's your reputation (such as it is) to ruin further.
>Yup, you have done some good work. What does that mean exactly?

It means I'm not a troublemaker here. Meanwhile you two are the ones
pissing off the members here.
>I would say the stance of dogging a guys efforts was not probably the
>best choice now was it? He stopped doing what he was doing (stuff
>that pays) to try and redeem on a promise, he did that.

And he should've done it months ago. You don't ignore major bugs for
what, half a year? And you sure as hell don't try to float some lame
excuse about how it was such a major job that it kept being put
off. Well, actually, that's exactly what you two are doing.
>Now lets see, oh yea.. now you have resulted to name calling. That is
>a sure fire way to get the compiler put back up.

So if I call y'all some more, will it extend the downtime? After
all, the longer you two pout, the worse it makes you look. If so,
y'all are poopyheads.
>So who is the villain here? Scott or I never resulted to calling you
>a name did we? We did not second guess your work did we? We did not
>even tell you how to do your work.

No, you just came here and insulted our intelligence (for starters)
>As far as I am concerned Scott was nice about it. I do not know when
>he will put it back up but I bet an apology would go a long way.

Stop it already! You almost owed me a new keyboard on that one.
> You
>can dog the guy for missing a deadline, thats cool. You can even dog
>the product, but you don't ask for something then complain cause it
>does not suit you.

I didn't. Next strawman?
> He says it should work so save your complaints
>until you either try it or test it.

Ah, there it is.
>Keep in mind my previous predicament. I don't have a copy of the new
>version either. I really need one to test on... yup, even I can't
>have a copy.

My gawd, can you guys dig that hole any deeper? I know the Olympics
are in Beijing, but just spring for the plane fare already. This
infantile posturing isn't doing your reputation any good. I'm sure
that educators and serious developers will be clamoring to get on
board with an organization that's as well managed as SI.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:38 PM, theo570 wrote:

> It will be back when Andy gets the test done or Scott cools down,
> whatever happens first.
>
> Like I said, I didn't do it but I support it 100%. It is amazing
> because Scott is such a typical "nice guy" and I am the typical ()
> well you get the point.
>
> If Andy had took a shot at me about my abilities it would never be
> posted again.
>
> Customer relations goes both ways.

Yes, but the seller/customer relationship is not symmetrical. A good=20=20
business person understands that he/she is dependent on the customer's=20=20
good will, not the other way around. If the customer is not happy the=20=20
customer goes elsewhere. That is bad for business.

I can't tell you how many times I have had an unreasonable call from a=20=20
customer. When I ran my own ISP I remember receiving phone calls at=20=20
3AM to let me know that there was something wrong with one of the=20=20
modems and I HAD to fix it right now. I could have said, "you moron,=20=20
it is 3AM and you should be in bed. I will fix it when I get there in=20=20
the morning." What I actually said was, "thank you for letting me=20=20
know. I can't get to the POP right now and the normal on-call=20=20
technician is unavailable. Is it critical that it get fixed now or can=20=20
it wait until morning?" The answer from the customer was always, "oh I=20=20
suppose it can wait until morning." The result was the same thing. It=20=20
took the same amount of time. But in one case the customer wanted to=20=20
hit me and in the other the customer was reasonably happy. The=20=20
difference was only words and a clear respect for the viewpoint of the=20=20
customer. That is all just about any customer wants.

So in the last few days we have heard the following:

1. We are not doing any more work on the OOPic and it is obsolete.=20=20
Tough luck if you need to use it.

2. You morons can't figure out how to use events properly anyway so=20=20
why should you care if it is fixed?

3. I fixed it but then I got pissed off at an angry customer so I am=20=20
going to screw all of you. Ha ha so there!

And all anyone was asking for was what you had already promised. Heck,=20=20
I am sure we all knew that the OOPic was nearing end-of-life. I know=20=20
it was pretty obvious to me given its age. But it was really useful=20=20
for teaching basic concepts of programming to kids and I am sure the=20=20
next generation will be too. So why go out of your way to piss off the=20=20
customers you want to purchase the new product?

I had hoped that you (Ted and Scott) might say something like, "gee,=20=20
you guys have a point. We didn't explain what we are doing very well=20=20
and we really want to keep you as customers. What do you guys think=20=20
would be a good middle ground that meets your immediate needs but=20=20
let's us get back to the business of developing the new product which=20=20
will be better that the old one?" Such a comment would have gone a=20=20
LONG way toward making everyone happy. In fact, you even DID what we=20=20
were asking for! But the approach leaves a bad taste in everyone's=20=20
mouth.

An old English proverb reads, "hope for the best but prepare for the=20=20
worst." That is where I am now. So, I am done posting on this topic.

--

Brian Lloyd Granite Bay Montessori
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com 9330 Sierra College Blvd.
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) Roseville, CA 95661, USA
http://www.gbmontessori.com

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry

PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> >Your hired!
> No thanks.

That is a shame. You have some good ideas on how to test the product.

> If you make a change to how oh, let's say,
> ...
> If not, why not?

And that makes my point Andy. You don't know how the compiler works.
Yet you are making claims that you do, complete with degrading and
insulting wording, towards the R&D team.

It is unnecessary.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> I had hoped that you (Ted and Scott) might say something
> like, "gee, you guys have a point".

You are absolutely correct.

I allowed Andy to ruffle my feathers, and I shouldn't have.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Ok. here is a fix for the event object.

http://si.fileburst.com/OOPic612.exe.zip

But there is a hitch. For expediency sake, I did not do the typical
four week testing phase I usually do to see if this fix affected any
of the other objects.

To see what changed, type this code in:

--------------------
a As oEvent

Sub a_Code()
a.Operate = 1
End Sub
--------------------

Compile it in both 6.1.1 and in 6.1.2, look at the generated opp
codes to see the difference.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Sound like you are in western Nebraska, six miles to the highway and another
20 to town.

**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )