Scusa, ma perchè continui ad ostinarti con questo linguaggio ? mi sembri abbastanza preparato (leggi "hai le palle quadrate") per cambiare linguaggio senza troppe difficoltà !!!
Comunque non dipende dal SO perchè il problema me lo ha fatto con W95, W98 e ora con XP a me era venuto il sospetto su qualche cosa che riguardasse la lingua del SO. In Italia siamo piuttosto pochi ad usare 'sto linguaggio e ciò spiegherebbe il perchè questi "bugs" non sono emersi come avrebbero dovuto

>Alessio, io non sò cosa scrivono gli altri ma ho molti dubbi che dipenda dal SO
>( lo fa sia su XP che su W2000 con varie macchine ).
>Quello che posso dire è che statisticamente lo fà spesso con nomi di metodi simili.
>Io uso spesso prefix_infix1_infix2_... ( separati da underscore ),
>mi sembra che scambi metodi con prefix uguali, ma è solo una congettura.
>Ho una 50tina di bugs ( alcuni sono molto interessanti !) da preparare per quando uscirà VFP9 ( loro mi stressano, e io contraccambio ), e questo non si presenta molto spesso ( considera che mi spara un C05 ogni mezzora ) e io faccio un backup ogni 15 minuti.
>
>
>>Mi domando come mai questo problema lo abbiamo riscontrato in pochi...non è che ha a che fare con la lingua del sistema operativo ? Lo so che probabilmente è una cazzata, ma come ti spieghi che un problema che a me si presenta di frequebte non viene discusso nei vari thread ?
>>
>>>Alessio, non perdere tempo, io non ho antivirus installati, e proprio ieri su un SCX piuttosto complesso mi è successo un macello.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks for your message, I'll try to switch off NAV while working in VFP. But I'm not sure that it is due to NAV, I don't think I've been working with NAV active for all these years... anyway I'll try to follow what you said
>>>>Alessio
>>>>
>>>>>Alessio,
>>>>>
>>>>>You can not trust a computer in computing. Thats normal. This was the very first I ever learned about computing. It needs always a human brain to make sense out of it.
>>>>>The simplest reason is translating a decimal fraction into a binary one is imposiible, so a simple 0.1 is not that easy because a binary fraction as divided by 2 and 0.1 is 1/(2*5). This wil end up in 0b0.0001011111111111111111.....
>>>>>There was allways a need for look over the results. A number like 1,000,000.01 makes no sense in technical terms, it need to be rounded. In finance terms there might be a reason, but this why we have special data-types for that.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I see is that you prevent NAV from scanning your scx files.
>>>>><bg>
>>>>>This is impossibile. NAV will allways scan your files - it will simple surpress the messages for the excluded.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you run VFP , switch off antvir progs - thats the simple rule. Argue to MS if you don't like it.
>>>>>You will run in a lot of strange errors if don't follow it. For example a simple USE may fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>I run VCX based classes for 7 years know (VFP 5 - 8) and had never had any problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>Agnes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't want to start a discussion about Fabio's or anyone else consideration about VFP as I don't think VFP is nothing but bugs. I'm uing VFP from over ten years I started with the 3.0 version and i do think it's a good development language, if it wasn't so I'd never used it instead of Paradox or Dbase language.
>>>>>>Anyway what happened to me and as I could see I'm not the only one, it's quite embarassing and the fact that Fabio tells you cannot trust about VFP calculation is not a good new. I don't want, as I dont think it would be the best way to do it, to develope engineer application with this language but I'd like to know till where I can trust VFP.
>>>>>>That's all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PS Anyway I prevent NAV to scan scx or sct files.... I'll let you know.
>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>>