>demonstrate the fallacy of your statement,
I made no statement other than that of a belief, a belief which since been shown mistaken.
My point was, when 'something' returns a VARIANT - by whatever means - the PROGRAMMER is responsible for interrogating the data type (VARIANTVT()) and effecting any conversion to the datatype required in his/her program. It is simply not reasonable to expect the compiler to know that a VT_BSTR is a valid datatype suitable for conversion to a numeric variable using the VARIANT#() function, simply because this time that BSTR just happens to contain something which could be interpreted as a character zoned decimal number.
Then again, maybe you think it is reasonable, in which case you should submit the New Feature Suggestion to which I alluded earlier in this thread.
MCM
I made no statement other than that of a belief, a belief which since been shown mistaken.
My point was, when 'something' returns a VARIANT - by whatever means - the PROGRAMMER is responsible for interrogating the data type (VARIANTVT()) and effecting any conversion to the datatype required in his/her program. It is simply not reasonable to expect the compiler to know that a VT_BSTR is a valid datatype suitable for conversion to a numeric variable using the VARIANT#() function, simply because this time that BSTR just happens to contain something which could be interpreted as a character zoned decimal number.
Then again, maybe you think it is reasonable, in which case you should submit the New Feature Suggestion to which I alluded earlier in this thread.
MCM
Comment