>Malcolm,
>
>I'm afraid, I can not recommend anything else. I know, that Mike Asherman designed an Error Handler class and since we're using it here I can tell, it's very sophisticated. I also saw messages from him here regarding the same problem, you're experiencing (it was a discussion with Doug Henning, I can find the specific thread, if you're interested). However, nothing came up from this discussion.
>
>I myself didn't dig into this problem, so I can not advise...
>
>>Hi Nadya,
>>
>>Thanks for your recommendation. Since posting my original query, I came across the site you posted. In reviewing this site I noticed that Mike Asherman (site author) came across the exact same problem as I did. The problem being that the 'return to' command will only accept unqualified procedure/method names. What we need is a way to specify a 'return to' destination with an object instance qualifier (to distinguish between multiple stack entries with matching method names but different class hierarchies) or a way to return to a specific program depth as in 'return to
' where is an integer that describes a specific position in the program() call stack.
>>
>>Any other ideas?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Malcolm G
>>
>>Nadya: Check this site http://www.ideaxchg.com/ix07/er/_sys/toccontu.htm for in-deep discussion about Error Handler and a sample, which you can download.
>>
>>Malcolm: I'm trying to use the 'return to program' statement to return to method code earlier in my program stack. The problem is that program() returns method code names as objectname.method but the 'return to program' syntax does not accept program names with periods.
Hi Nadya,
The discussion I had around 1/4/01 with Doug Hennig about this is at http://www.levelextreme.com/wconnect/wc.dll?FournierTransformation~?2,41,18,459231
Also note this, about a few somewhat obscure situations that call for further adjustments to my ErrHandler programs: http://www.ideaxchg.com/ix07/bymda/mdav0010.htm#erma0023
It's too bad that VFP doesn't support a clean, simple RETURN TO stack_depth syntax. I consider this to be a fundamental VFP language flaw, which would appear to be easily correctable. Let's hope we get it soon.
Mike
