What's the default choice if Public/Private is ommited from the Sub statement?

[MLH]

What's the default declaration if Public/Private is ommited
from the Sub statement in an Access 97 procedure?

[David W. Fenton]

MLH <CR**@NorthStat e.net> wrote in
news:5q******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

What's the default declaration if Public/Private is ommited
from the Sub statement in an Access 97 procedure?

Easily tested. Paste this into a module:

Sub TestMe()
MsgBox "It worked!"
End Sub

and then see what happens when you call it from the Debug
window.

Now, paste the same sub into a form's module, open the form and call
it as:

Forms!frmMyForm .TestMe

You'll see that there's consistency of result between the two
contexts.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Chuck Grimsby]

For the code behind a Form, the default is "Private".
In a Module, the default is "Public".

MLH wrote:

What's the default declaration if Public/Private is ommited
from the Sub statement in an Access 97 procedure?

[David W. Fenton]

"Chuck Grimsby" <c.*******@worl dnet.att.net> wrote in
news:11******** ************@g4 9g2000cwa.googl egroups.com:

MLH wrote:

What's the default declaration if Public/Private is ommited
from the Sub statement in an Access 97 procedure?

For the code behind a Form, the default is "Private".
In a Module, the default is "Public".

In what sense is that the case?

If you ran the test that I posted, you'd see that your answer is
misleading, as undeclared subroutines are public by default.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Tim Marshall]

David W. Fenton wrote:

In what sense is that the case?

If you ran the test that I posted, you'd see that your answer is
misleading, as undeclared subroutines are public by default.

Can someone (davis, Chuck, anyone) give an example of when a public
procedure in a FORM is necessary and works?

In the past, I've sometimes written a proc or two that would be nice to
be available to all other forms open at the same time a particular form
is open, with an error trap on the calling form to say ("you must have
such and such a screen open to perform this task") but I've never been
able to have a function/sub declared public on a form module accessible
by other forms. So anything I want accessible by more than one form, I
pop into a standard module.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[rkc]

Tim Marshall wrote:

David W. Fenton wrote: In the past, I've sometimes written a proc or two that would be nice to
be available to all other forms open at the same time a particular form
is open, with an error trap on the calling form to say ("you must have
such and such a screen open to perform this task") but I've never been
able to have a function/sub declared public on a form module accessible
by other forms. So anything I want accessible by more than one form, I
pop into a standard module.

Forms.Form1.met hodCall()

or

dim f as access.form
set f = Forms.Form1
f.methodCall
The way I see things, a public method in a form should perform some
kind of operation on that form. If it doesn't it's not really a
member of that object so it belongs in a module.

[Tim Marshall]

rkc wrote:

have such and such a screen open to perform this task") but I've never
been able to have a function/sub declared public on a form module
accessible by other forms.
Forms.Form1.met hodCall()

dim f as access.form
set f = Forms.Form1
f.methodCall

Ahhhhhh! I've simply just put the name of the proc down, without
reference to the form. There ya go! 8)
The way I see things, a public method in a form should perform some
kind of operation on that form. If it doesn't it's not really a
member of that object so it belongs in a module.

I'd agree with that.

Thanks!
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[MLH]

Based on a summarization of what I've read in
all your posts, I think it best that I begin explicitly
declaring them public or private as deemed
needed.

I have not been doing so. It appears to be good
programming practice.

[David W. Fenton]

MLH <CR**@NorthStat e.net> wrote in
news:ca******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

Based on a summarization of what I've read in
all your posts, I think it best that I begin explicitly
declaring them public or private as deemed
needed.

I have not been doing so. It appears to be good
programming practice.

It's always good programming practice to explicitly declare anything
at all.

And you should also make the scope/data types as narrow as possible
to get the job done.

Asking yourself the question "should this be public?" or "should
this be a variant or a string?" requires addressing a whole lot of
issues outside the narrowest scope of the problem you are addressing
with the code you're writing. Getting in the habit of asking
yourself what the narrowest definitions can be will help make your
code better.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc