In line.
--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users -
http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
"Allen Browne" <Al*********@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in
news:43***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
... avoid stuff like:
- Conditional Formatting
- the Undo event of the form.
Me.Undo exists in A97. But the OnDirty event does not exist.
Not the Undo METHOD (so you can undo the record), but the Undo EVENT of the
Form (i.e. where Access notifies you that the record has been reset.)
There was a KB article on how to simulate an undo event for the form, but it
did not work reliably. A2000 introduced a true Form_Undo event that works.
- OpenArgs for OpenReport.
- VBA functions such as Replace() and Split().
One could easily port that code for A97.
Yes, if one is aware of the issue.
- ADO-specific code (especially DDL)
Much of it would still work with ADO1.5
Yes, I did not word that clearly. I was thinking of the new JET 4 features
that don't work in the query interface or in DAO in later versions of
Access, so have to be executed via ADO.
If you do convert back, decompile first. . . .
This strikes me as a waste of time, as all the compiled code will be
discarded, anyway, during the conversion.
You may be right: I don't recall getting caught when converting back to 97.
But I have been caught several times with a database I edited in A2003 and
the user is using A2000. The silent discard is not reliable, and actually
does corrupt the database and introduce bloating and hard-to-trace bugs. The
suggestion is to force the discard before converting back to any previous
version, but I have no evidence that this would be productive for a
conversion back to 97.
. . . Avoid any references other than
VBA, Access and DAO. After conversion to A97, you will still need
to change your DAO reference to 3.51. (A2003 doesn't make that
change for you.)
A2K did.
Yes, that's the way I remember it also, so I was surprised that A2003 did
not.