I am canning this routine as the vector may end up being modified. Thx for the input.

OMG, I spent two days on Google looking for this. Thank you thank you thank you. It was driving me nuts. Mark Jackson

Sounds good - I always revert to the old carving code in stone method when all else fails so I hope the mutex works:thumbsup: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

Eddy Vluggen wrote: if there's only one class But there might not be! Eddy Vluggen wrote: a single stdout That's not the point. I want to pass a reference to something that implements ITextWriter, for example, I don't care that it just happens to be System.Console in this particular case. But .net doesn't allow me to do that easily for multiple reasons.

I took the easy route which was to create a small forms application that used a WebBrowser object to render the page, then output the text stream from the WebBrowser to an email message. Not elegant but it works. Thank you for all the replies. Mark Jackson

The WHERE clause was causing the LEFT OUTER JOIN to act as an INNER JOIN, hence you lost all of the records where there wasn't a match. Well done on finding the right way to do it and for showing others what you did!

Bill, sorry for the delay in replying. To answer your unspoken question, yes and no - the code was answering the premise that exception handling should not be relied upon when a simple check can solve the issue. So, what is the error we're coping with in this example? It's the fact that you can't write a file into a directory until that directory exists. The other side here, is the fact as you've rightly pointed out, that this doesn't address all the cases that can be tested for. In my defence, I wrote this as a cut-down sample in the CP editor as an example only, but you are right, there are many other conditions that could be catered for. The point is really two-fold, if you create a utility API to handle the conditions that you can test for (rather than catch as an exception) then you have given yourself a real advantage when you come to write your production code. No, you won't get rid of exception handling altogether, but you won't be relying on it to cope with conditions that could easily have been tested for. So, why do I advocate this? Well, exception handling is meant to indicate something that you couldn't reasonably predict and cope with. The mark of a good application is one that doesn't surprise users, so I'm either going to have to do lots of try/catch (and then cope with the failure before triggering the condition in the try/catch again), or I can put something in place to cope with the error before it occurs and make an intelligent decision about coping with the problem. I hope this somewhat rambling post conveys some of what I was trying to get across. Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads "Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility

Got it to work. Man this seems clunky tho protected void gvFcstDmd\_RowDataBound(object sender, GridViewRowEventArgs e) { if (e.Row.RowType == DataControlRowType.DataRow) { int i; TableCell c; for (i = 1; i < e.Row.Cells.Count; i++) { c = e.Row.Cells\[i\]; c.HorizontalAlign = HorizontalAlign.Right; Double d = Double.Parse(c.Text) \* 1000; c.Text = String.Format("{0,6:N0}",d); } } }

mjackson11 wrote: What do other people do? Per the other suggest that MS Access attempts to load all of it.... If that is the case then create a view(s) that limits the data set greatly. And link to that.

If I understand this right, you want to take a page source and execute JS within it to extract data? Website scraping is a specific thing for each site, whatever you do, so I recommend that you instead parse the JS (it's almost certainly automatically generated and therefore easy to automatically decompose) to get the data. A regex ought to be able to do that for you. Executing arbitrary JavaScript could produce surprising or even malicious results. Also, you should check that automated scraping doesn't violate the terms of use of the website, particularly if the content you are scraping is not visible without an account.

Turns out the network folks were backing up the entire database every 60 seconds. Without telling us. Performance is fine now that we turned that off. About 25% greater than local file. Thx for the pointers. Mark Jackson

Tim Carmichael wrote: Since I, personally, DETEST seeing SQL statements hard-coded in an application That's where they belong, so you know they can't be easily changed. And it is to be hoped that any changes are properly tracked in your version control system with a proper paper trail and then tested. Stored procedures are too fragile and should be avoided at all costs. I've even had stored procedures "disappear"... there one day, gone the next.

Tuning a database is an art and there is no 1 silver bullet, you can only try a number of things and see if they are worth the changes. For a start the size of your indexes should not concern you, on a heavily indexed table this is not unusual. If you insert is a bacth job (with 100k records is should be) then it may be worth dropping the indexes for the insert and recreating them. This is a DRASTIC measure and should be tested for cost on another server. Consider the changes to the clustered index suggested Consider moving the indexes to another physical drive Partitioning your data (think archiving but you can query across partitions) These are but some of your options, I assume you have use query profiler to asses the cost of your queries.

I had read about rvalue references and I'm able to admire it more now. Thanks :thumbsup: «_Superman_» I love work. It gives me something to do between weekends.

BTW, Make your destructor virtual. If you're accessing derived class object though base class point and if you delete it, derived class constructor will not be called. See FAQ[^] -Sarath. "Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin My blog - Sharing My Thoughts

I did it by adding the virtual functions to the base class. Just seems like a clunky solution. Thx very much.

On a side note, a few changes will makes things better. First change this function by adding the underlined bits: bool exp_LT(const curvePoint<double> &lhs, const curvePoint<double> &rhs) { return (lhs.getExp() < rhs.getExp()); } Now change the class as follows (again, by adding the underlined bits): public: void setValue(_Ty p) { _mValue = p; } _Ty getValue() const { return _mValue; } void setDate(Date d) { _mDate = d; } inline void setDate(long d) { _mDate = d; } Date getDate() const { return _mDate; } void setExp(Date d) { _expDate = d; } void setExp(long d) { _expDate = d; } Date getExp() const { return _expDate; } Steve

Stupid programming tricks -- the method was defined in a file that was in the directory but not included in the project. Two wasted days.

FWIW, I was able to do the following - std::list _listA; std::list::iterator _iA; std::list> _listB; std::list>::iterator _iB; dObj * p; int i; dObj o; for (i = 5; i > 0; --i) { o.setID(i); // method in base class (iObj) o.setValue(i); // method in derived class (dObj) _listA.push_back(o); _listB.push_back(o); } _listA.sort(); _listB.sort(); _iA = _listA.begin(); _iB = _listB.begin(); i = (*_iB).getValue(); // works i = _iB->getValue(); // works although it's not necessarily defined? p = static_cast *>(&(*_iA)); i = p->getValue(); // works _iA++; p = static_cast *>(&(*_iA)); i = p->getValue(); // WRONG answer. The id associated with iObj was correct (2) but the //member variables associated with the derived object have vanished. return 0; Guess I will just go with sub classing several different kinds of lists.

My error, I got myself confused. Everything is working correctly. I had gotten confused with constructors that call the base class constructor. I re-declared everything and explicitly called the base class method.