Comments on: Validation Functions

By: Jon Peltier

Jon Peltier — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:31:47 +0000

With every test you have an opportunity to define a piece of information to pass back to the calling routine. I don’t think where you start makes much difference.

By: Doug Glancy

Doug Glancy — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:15:23 +0000

I thought about this some more, and it seems like starting at False makes it easier to return the reasons that the function fails, either runtime or validation errors.

By: Jon Peltier

Jon Peltier — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:54:30 +0000

Doug -

I’l wait for Bob’s take on this, but I think it’s a kind of half-empty, half-full situation. I don’t think there’s any real reason to do it one way or the other. It just makes sense in my mind not to claim success until you’ve ruled out failure.

By: Doug Glancy

Doug Glancy — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:21:11 +0000

I notice that Bob sets the function to true at the beginning and changes the value to false in the error handler, whereas Jon explicitly sets it to false and uses Goto to break out of the function before it turns true if there’s an error. I’m used to doing it Jon’s way (although I’ve stopped explicitly setting the function to false). What are the advantages of your way, Bob?

By: Jon Peltier

Jon Peltier — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:52:58 +0000

Public Function MyFunction would have sounded redundant even if I had noticed (O Captain, my Captain), but it’s fixed now.

The code uses html tags (

), none of the square bracket tags, because I really don’t like how any of those plugins work. Until I get four hundred comments a day, it’s not too burdensome to fix it myself. Those of us with OCD have lots of energy for that sort of thing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:45:57 +0000

Thank you for tidying up my code, presumably there are tags to do that, what are they [code]...[/code]?

You didn’t spot that I missed the Function keyword in the Function signature though