"Jozef" <SP**********@telus.net> wrote in
news:wn%Oe.298308$5V4.48308@pd7tw3no:
That worked, but I'm wondering why I never encountered that
before?
Well, it's perhaps the fault of Microsoft for engineering A2K
stupidly to have newly-created MDB files include the ADO reference
but not the DAO record. On the other hand, files converted from A97
will include the DAO reference and no ADO reference. If you're
accustomed to working with converted MDBs, you likely would never
have encountered the missing DAO reference.
Microsoft has recognized the error of their ways and changed the
behavior in A2K3, if I'm not mistaken, to include DAO.
Either way, given the possibility of having both ADO and DAO
references (there are perfectly valid reasons for that), it's best
to disambiguate your uses of DAO and ADO object types as Tom
suggested.
I *never* use ADO, but I always explicitly indicate that I'm using
DAO, just in case my code should ever end up running in an
environment with an ADO reference that happens to be in the wrong
order.
--
David W. Fenton
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc