David

>Bob,
>
>I am interested. C05s are not pretty at all *bg*. But I've not had time to look at the code you've posted yet. I probably can't get to check it out until later on this week.
>
>>Hello David. I don't know if you had a interest or chance to look at the code that I posted earlier on this thread but it is a similar problem to what Fabio is having. Though taking the "m." out of his assignment expression fixes his problem not making an assignment to a member of a class that is a object reference that also has an _assign method does cause problems that people should be aware of. Just FYI
>>
>>UPDATED:
>>In my code earlier I also tested it with the "m." prefix, however taking this prefix out still causes C5's

This is not the first time in this thread that m. has been mentioned. The text above suggests m. is making no difference. It seems premature to blame m. for the C5's in this thread. Yes, I'm probably biased. Does the c5 happen 100% of the time? Does it fail to happen 100% of the time without m.? If you cannot say yes to both of these, then you should rephrase. m.This may cause c5's in certain unusual circumstances.

Which brings me to another point. The old joke about the doctor telling the patient not to do something because it hurts can cut both ways. If the patient is doing something harmful, the doctor is right to stop him/her. On the other hand, if the doctor is a quack, and the patient has a legitimate complaint, the doctor is wrong to stop him/her.

I want to know what someone is doing so we can see which kind of doctor or patient s/he is. I will not just assume the person is really good or really bad, because a brilliant person can be having an off day and vice versa.

Thanks!