[AccessD] Array dimensions, Row - Col or Col Row

Jim Lawrence (AccessD) accessd at shaw.ca
Sat Feb 21 17:30:01 CST 2004


Hi Jürgen:

Your back! Good to see you, email-wise again.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Jürgen Welz
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 9:53 AM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: [AccessD] Array dimensions, Row - Col or Col Row


Pet peeve - Microsoft documentation and book authors that insist that the
the first dimension of 2 dimensional array is the row and the second is the
column.  I see that this carries over into the .Net books I'm reading.  When
was the last time you used a Recordset .getRows method and had the first
index refer to the record and the second to the field?  When was the last
time you redimensioned an array to add a column rather than to add or remove
a number of rows (records)?  How often does a table/query change in size as
to the number of rows (records) in comparison to the number of columns
(fields)?

It doesn't really matter which it is, but with the old versions of VB/A, you
could only resize the last index of a multi-dimensioned array (without
copying to a new array anyway) so the only practical usage is to add rows to
a fixed number of columns which is in fact how it was implemented.  Then the
authors (Dianne Zak for example) and even Microsoft help deliberately
explain them to be varArray(RowIndex, ColIndex) when in the actual practical
implementation it is nearly always (ColIndex, RowIndex).

It doesn't matter which it is because it is really just an abstract data
structure that you can in theory map as you please.  The problem I have is
when documentation insists on defining it in an impractical manner in the
context of getrows and other database usage making it obvious that the VB
data people didn't speak with the VB language people.  I had hoped that by
.Net they would have a chance to write new documentation and finally get it
right but I've been reading the Sybex Maastering Visual Basic .NET Database
Programming, Visual Basic .NET Developer's Handbook and Mastering Visual
Basic .NET and Evangelos Petroutsos keeps right on defining it backwards
when he could have just shut up.

Why is it that within a single company and a single development platform,
developers insist on driving on different sides of the road?  Is there a
means to lodge a complaint with Microsoft so that the next time they replace
the entire language they might finally get the documentaion consistent?


Ciao
Jürgen Welz
Edmonton, Alberta
jwelz at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin
.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list