>>>>>>To me, getPem() returning an object is equally non-obvious as a cryptic macro expansion. And if we assign this object to a properly prefixed local variable, it's even more readable than a macro or an eval() call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But then, de gustibus non est disputandum.
>>>>>
>>>>>Taste should never be as important as engineering. :)
>>>>
>>>>"Less obvious" tastes like having a taste... towards "I like this better because I'm used to it". For me, getpem() is pretty much a straight system call, while eval() or a macro are workarounds.
>>>
>>>Dragan
>>>
>>>You've convinced me. I take back my statement. It should not be avoided, just properly documented.
>>>
>>>MS should document that GETPEM will return any contained object and not just PEMs. As long as variables are named appropriately GetPEM should be fine.
>>
>>But they did document:) Any contained object is just a member of PEM:)
>
>Hi Cetin
>
>Where does it say that? If I drop a control on a form it doesn't appear as a property of the form, although I can navigate to it via the property sheet. Is that the way to look at it? Whatever is on the property sheet is a PEM? Very confusing!

I don't know if it writes or not but should the obvious be written somewhere?
Yes it's and furthermore some PEM are even is not in that PEM sheet.
Cetin