Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- From: "Steve Gerrard" <mynamehere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:48:25 -0700
"Donald Lessau" <don@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fg7bfa$iq1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"dpb" <none@xxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:fg7aiu$mf$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Donald Lessau wrote:
"Steve Gerrard" <mynamehere@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Q4ednZ36GKyrLLvanZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Val is nice because it it will read a number followed by text, i.e. 23A
becomes 23, instead of tossing up an error...
... which also has a dark side: e.g. Val("23E2") -> 2300, and
Val("23E-2") -> 0.23
What's the "dark" side of correct interpretation of a floating point
exponential notation??? (Puzzled as to why one would/could possibly
expect/want any other result...)
I referred to the statement of the previous poster:
Val is nice because it it will read a number followed by text...
If you use Val to grab numbers from the left end of strings (a quite common
usage of Val it seems to me), you might be surprised by the returns when the
string happens to look like an exponential notation.
Don
I tend to agree, Don, Val is often used that way, and I meant the word "nice" as
a polite way of saying "sloppy". I myself prefer to use explicit conversions,
with parsing if needed. There just aren't enough situations where I need to peel
a number from the left end of a string that I can't sort them out myself.
.
- References:
- Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- From: Jack
- Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- From: Steve Gerrard
- Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- From: Donald Lessau
- Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- From: dpb
- Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- From: Donald Lessau
- Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- Prev by Date: Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- Next by Date: Re: WebBrowser control question
- Previous by thread: Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- Next by thread: Re: Val() versus CLng, CInt or CByte
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|