It goes something like /,[^,]*$/ Fire up expresso and try it. The logic is "comma, any number of non-commas, end" So all but the last comma will fail the second part. Cheers, Peter ps There is a regex forum here. Next time... Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.

Thanks a lot, it was missing "Test,"

you can use C# screen scraping (WebClient class) so that you will get response sent by server as it is check this http://www.codersource.net/microsoft-net/c-advanced/html-screen-scraping-in-c.aspx[^] ============================================ The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence

Hide your members whenever possible... Showing them almost always leads to embarrassment and ridicule... :) I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

But then if there is multiple forms that can open forms 2, 3 and 4 then they are likely to have a different UI, which means different properties in your static class and therefore you still have to update code in Forms 2, 3 and 4 to account for this. I do agree with you about the disadvantages of linking forms in your scenario of Forms 2, 3 and 4 can be opened by multiple forms and they need to disable controls in there parent. But regardless of the methods mentioned here, they all require Forms 2, 3, and 4 to be updated when any new Parent Forms/Controls are created The way I see it is that if Form 2 needs to disable any controls in Form 1 then the 2 forms are already quite related (even if not directly by code). Therefore I see the best logic in being that anything in Form2 that determines that state of controls in Form1 should be presented as a property/method. Then Form1 can query the values at any time and update its own control state (perhaps an update event or if it is a Dialog then on close/result) So... Form2 has a property InvalidData Form2 has an event Update Form1 listens for Update event and then if InvalidData then disable control ...but then when Form3 pops up, you have to update code in Form1 to check state of new Forms properties. I just cannot think why a child form would need to disable controls in a parent unless that form was specifically created for that parent form alone Oops, now I'm rambling. Happy holidays return 5;

You can check if <>.State equals 'adStateOpen' constant.

As Luc told, change the target framework from the project properties. MSDN would help on how to do that. Also, you can very well use new "compiler features" available with .Net 3.5. Your code will still run fine on a computer with .Net framework 2.0.

see the connection bible[^]. :) Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets. I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).

well, i solved... just change WebBrowser1.Document.Forms(0).All("formName").SetAttribute("target", "newtarget") to WebBrowser1.Document.Forms("formName").SetAttribute("target", "newtarget")

wow, thank you very much... i just put the allowmerge = false and solved ;)

ok, thank u anyway!!!

ok, i think i solved it, i didn't had time to test it, but i found a code like this: webbrowser1.document.all.fieldname.value = TextBox1.Text update: the prewier code is just valid on vb6, for .net users the correct code is: WebBrowser1.Document.GetElementById("fieldnam").InnerText = TextBox1.Text modified on Monday, April 5, 2010 4:00 PM

it doesnt work for me, i need it in ASP, not in .NET... and it cant be on , cuz the outher program that will read the file, cant read this (html) excel.... thank u anyway modified on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:49 AM -- Modified Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:50 AM

I wouldn't use the terminology "static constructor" (as ALL constructors are NECESSARILY static - you cannot invoke an instance method until you've constructed an intance). But there certainly is something that (in C#) uses the keyword "static" followed by same syntax as a constructor - the class initializer. Class initializers can be used if you want to perform initialization of some kind once before a type can be used. For example, let's say you are making a bookmaker system. The prices (odds) may vary from 1.01 to 1000, but not everything in between is legal. Instead you have something like this: From To Increment 1.01 2.00 0.01 2.02 4.00 0.02 4.04 10.00 0.05 .... 500 1000 10 You could use an Int32 to store the integral number of 1/100 units, i.e. 125 for 1.25, and cover more than the range you need. But if there are only 256 legal prices you could store it in just a byte. This could make a big difference when tens of thousands of transactions per hour are to be handled, especially in terms of writing data to a database. Anyway, it doesn't really matter for our purposes whether or not the representation is useful! The point is this is a good candidate for a type initializer. Given a byte value of 135, we need to find price number 135 of the legal prices. So we can equip the class with an array and initialize the type before it's used like this: public class OddsPrice { // --- Class members --- // // Legal prices in ascending order. static int[] priceArray; // Type initializer: Initializes price array. static OddsPrice() { priceArray = new int[256]; int price = 100; // cents int i = 0; while ((price += 1) <= 200) priceArray[i++] = price; while ((price += 2) <= 400) priceArray[i++] = price; ... } // --- Instance members --- // // Byte representation of value: Index in ordered set of legal values. byte value; // Value in cents public int Value { get { return priceArray[value]; } } } The type initializer will be called automatically at an undefined time (in current implementations of the CLR I believe it happens when the assembly is loaded, but the spec says undefined so don't assume anything) prior to the type being used at run-time. The advantage is that you do not need to handle any thread-syncing to ensure it runs once and only once and before anything else on the type can be used.