Overflow Error

[BerkshireGuy]

I am getting an overflow error on the following:

intPercentNotPa id = IIf(intNumberAp proved = 0, 0, intNumberNotPai d /
intNumberApprov ed)

The intNumberapprov ed is 0, but it is still evaluating the False part
of the IIf and thus throwing me into the error. It should just be
setting intPercentNotPa id = 0

Should I just do an if statement and skip the calculation if
intNumberApprov ed = 0 ?

Thanks,
Brian

[Randy Harris]

Re: Overflow Error

"BerkshireG uy" <bdaoust@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:1114785163 .974767.262570@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue]
> I am getting an overflow error on the following:
>
> intPercentNotPa id = IIf(intNumberAp proved = 0, 0, intNumberNotPai d /
> intNumberApprov ed)
>
> The intNumberapprov ed is 0, but it is still evaluating the False part
> of the IIf and thus throwing me into the error. It should just be
> setting intPercentNotPa id = 0
>
> Should I just do an if statement and skip the calculation if
> intNumberApprov ed = 0 ?
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>[/color]

This is from the A2K docs:
Remarks

IIf always evaluates both truepart and falsepart, even though it returns
only one of them. Because of this, you should watch for undesirable side
effects. For example, if evaluating falsepart results in a division by zero
error, an error occurs even if expr is True.

[BerkshireGuy]

Re: Overflow Error

Ok I get a loser of the day award!

Thanks........

-Brian

[Randy Harris]

Re: Overflow Error

"BerkshireG uy" <bdaoust@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:1114785970 .115570.80470@g 14g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...[color=blue]
> Ok I get a loser of the day award!
>
> Thanks........
>
> -Brian[/color]

Nah - no loser award. When I saw your post I remembered having read this in
the docs. The reason I remembered it, is that it seemed so "wrong". Why
evaluate all of the arguments? It struck me as being very innefficient.
That behavior is not what I would call "intuitive" .

Randy

[lesperancer@natpro.com]

Re: Overflow Error

interesting, so converting from access97 to access2k could require a
mass conversion to fix this syntax

Randy Harris wrote:[color=blue]
> "BerkshireG uy" <bdaoust@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:1114785970 .115570.80470@g 14g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...[color=green]
> > Ok I get a loser of the day award!
> >
> > Thanks........
> >
> > -Brian[/color]
>
> Nah - no loser award. When I saw your post I remembered having read[/color]
this in[color=blue]
> the docs. The reason I remembered it, is that it seemed so "wrong".[/color]
Why[color=blue]
> evaluate all of the arguments? It struck me as being very[/color]
innefficient.[color=blue]
> That behavior is not what I would call "intuitive" .
>
> Randy[/color]

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Overflow Error

lesperancer@nat pro.com wrote:[color=blue]
> interesting, so converting from access97 to access2k could require a
> mass conversion to fix this syntax[/color]

Access 97 behaves the same way. This is from the Access 97 help file...

*************** ************
Remarks
IIf always evaluates both truepart and falsepart, even though it returns
only one of them. Because of this, you should watch for undesirable side
effects. For example, if evaluating falsepart results in a division by zero
error, an error occurs even if expr is True.
*************** ************

What you might have seen is that this behavior is not true in any version
when IIf() is used in a query. It is only when used in VBA code that both
parts are evaluated.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com