[VB] Function Integrity Checks at Runtime

[Permaphrost]

You are handling them, nonetheless. You are instructing the program what to do if an error occurs - not handling them would be to simply let them occur and be unable to execute your code.

[Mystical]

 On Error Resume Next  is not handling an Error, as Warrior stated is simply ignoreing all Errors and just moving on.. also by not having all your errors handled, you wont beable to find what the exact errors are to fix the problems if any, using it this way wont always let your program run properly..

[RealityRipple]

Reminds me of a geek philosophy on life I made up... Universe: Uni Verse... One verse... verses can be lines... lines of code... On Error Resume Next is a line of code... and it explains how the universe works... When something happens, just move on to the next thing....

Annnnyway... On Error Resume Next, whether it is handling or not, is still bad coding practice unless the errors do NOT matter, like on Form_Resize in most cases. However, Error handlers should include Resume Next at the end, otherwise the rest of the procedure is ignored. HOWEVER this has NOOOOTHING to do with what we were talking about. It was just a stupid response to a stupid statement.

[topaz]

Reminds me of a geek philosophy on life I made up... Universe: Uni Verse... One verse... verses can be lines... lines of code... On Error Resume Next is a line of code... and it explains how the universe works... When something happens, just move on to the next thing....

Annnnyway... On Error Resume Next, whether it is handling or not, is still bad coding practice unless the errors do NOT matter, like on Form_Resize in most cases. However, Error handlers should include Resume Next at the end, otherwise the rest of the procedure is ignored. HOWEVER this has NOOOOTHING to do with what we were talking about. It was just a stupid response to a stupid statement.

...

This is why you should stay on the Brutalnet boards.

[Warrior]

You are handling them, nonetheless. You are instructing the program what to do if an error occurs - not handling them would be to simply let them occur and be unable to execute your code.

How are you handling them if you are making the errors be supressed. Nothing is being fixed, you just are suppresing the errors from showing. If your application is going to hang, it's going to hang regardless of how many times you type "On Error Resume Next". At the least it will produce unexpected results when an error occurs.

Horrible, horrible coding habbit to get into.

[Permaphrost]

How are you handling them if you are making the errors be supressed. Nothing is being fixed, you just are suppresing the errors from showing. If your application is going to hang, it's going to hang regardless of how many times you type "On Error Resume Next". At the least it will produce unexpected results when an error occurs.

Horrible, horrible coding habbit to get into.

You're right, it is a nasty coding habit to get into. I'm not implying that "handling" errors by supressing them in this way is going to correct anything, simply stating that if you instruct a program to take action on an error, it is error handling.

[Warrior]

You're instructing it to do nothing..
It's only handled if you take care of the error, you just skip over it potentially producing unwanted results.

[Explicit]

Warrior, calm down.  He acknowledged it already. 

[Permaphrost]

It's only handled if you take care of the error

I am not trying to pick at what you're saying, so I do hope it doesn't seem that way. But error handling can be anything from reporting the error or saving information about the error, to functions that deal with certain errors to prevent them from adversely affecting the program. It does not have to fix the problem.

Anyway, sorry that this topic strayed off on a bit of a tangent here. Thank you to those who helped with the original question.