List? Cull? Perhaps he forgot to glCallList() :laugh:

Is the "params" keyword not just "syntactic sugar" for passing an arbitrary number of parameters into what is really just an array? When you write something like:

void f(params int[] values)
{
// do something with values
}
void g()
{
f(3, 4, 5, 6);
f(new int[] { 3, 4, 5, 6 });
}

The two calls to "f" do exactly the same thing, the first just looks neater. I'd imagine multiple functions with different numbers of "value" arguments wouldn't be generated by the compiler, because (correct me if I'm wrong) it's more efficient to pass an array of values than to pass the values on the stack individually. Even if the disassembler didn't understand the presence of the "params" keyword, the function signature would still have a single "int[]" parameter, wouldn't it? since the compiler didn't actually go through and generate separate functions for those parameters.

Way, way back when I first started programming in VB6 (about eight years ago, haven't touched it since!) I seem to recall there was a global variable that VB6 defined as "App" Examples: App.PrevInstance, App.Title, App.HelpFile It's possible that, somewhere without even knowing it, your application was referring to a variable on the VB6 App object (which wouldn't exist in your redefinition of the app variable, remember VB6 is case insensitive). Being a .NET developer today, the fact that your app was done in VB6 is one thing that clued me in on this issue: the global App variable does not exist in VB.NET.