Version 2.3.1.4457 OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.17763.0, x64 Host Product: Microsoft Office x64 Host Version: 16.0.11231.20080 Host Executable: WINWORD.EXE
**Description** I think this is a VBA problem but I'm reporting here for the sake of completeness.
My project has a couple of hand crafted Interfaces. I'm now trying out the Extract interface command in Rubberduck to implement an interface for a new class. Extracting the interface work
A company I was interested in just flew me out for an interview. It was on the other side of the country so they paid for my flight and hotel. Unfortunately, the interview went disastrously. I blew every question and I could tell that they didn't like me personally.
When I got to the airport ...
@Comintern at only 181 votes (as of now)? Interesting. I didn't actually read the Law.SE question until you mentioned that, I just assumed that "lawyering up" would be the first course of action...
I would be most interested in hearing both sides of the story - there are always two sides, and usually each is missing some key details in the telling...
Yeah. Totally bombing an interview as he admits to doing does sound like he may have fudged a bit, but still, that's a really crappy thing to do. I'd be interested in knowing what company it is so I could politely decline all interview opportunities with a link to the story. That's just a really, really bad thing to do to a potential employee, no matter how fluffy his resume may have been.
Plus, I don't want to have to potentially pay for my own return fare, just in case my interview doesn't go as well as hoped.
I found myself agreeing mainly with the standpoint that if the company felt like they were taken advantage of, the should have taken legal action themselves.
I.e., if they thought they were defrauded in paying for airfare, sue the OP instead.
Although I am curious why that ever got beyond a phone interview in the first place.
Since you tagged this vba, I thought you were adding the sheet using code, but your comment indicates that you're "clicking the add new sheet button", so I'm not sure which you're after.
If you're doing this in code, Google* msdn worksheet.copy for documentation on the command.
If you're doin...
To find this out, scientists have conducted a variety of tests using bees, the most awesome one being by Chinese scientist, Lijang Zeng and his team, who devised system comprised of lasers and tiny mirrors glued to bees back in 2001. This experiment was deemed superior to previous tests, as it didn’t need to use tethered bees (which fly differently) and because it contained lasers, which is of course super cool. We’re fairly certain that a laboratory full of Asian scientists firing tiny laser beams at bees covered in shiny body armour is going to be the next big Syfy channel hit, so rememb…
> This explains the problem. This is a bug indeed since the refactoring is very naive in how the interface gets extracted.
I am not completely sure how to deal with it though. Anyway, we should not extract an interface in a way that members still reference the original class.
If you can edit your question to include a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example with code that depicts the general design you have, you'll get awesome answers and ideas. As it stands though, your question is rather impossible to answer without massive speculations about what you've written and how the components relate to each other. But no, there's no way to "force compilation" - you can't have ambiguous identifiers in any scope, that's just how it works. — Mathieu Guindon22 hours ago
and here:
You'll need to design a UserForm with a ListBox control showing your available filter values, and configure the listbox to render CheckBoxStyle so that each item in the list gets a checkbox. Then you'll need to write a procedure that determines whether the form was cancelled or okayed, and apply the desired filter accordingly (or not). So yes,it's possible... just many, many, many things to cover - more than can reasonably fit an answer box on this site. — Mathieu Guindon22 hours ago
and countless other places
point is, there's a way to give people helpful feedback while hinting at a better way to ask questions, without being an @$$
> I see several options how to deal with members referencing the class type.
1. Do not extract such members at all. 2. Only extract members where this only affects the return type and change the return type to the interface type. 3. Extract all methods and change the class type to the interface type everywhere.
Option 1 is clearly the most restrictive. Option 3 can lead to members that cannot be implemented because the necessary information is not exposed on the interface. Option
I did find it rather hard to ask questions at <100 rep. but then I learned about meta, lurked there, learned how the site works, and never got in trouble.
FWIW, I need to put this at the beginning of my tutorial system: If you have a problem, someone else already had it. Look it up on the web. You won't have an original problem for probably 5 years.
> Sorry it has taken so long to reply ... Been busy. I will report the issue to the Windows Insider group soon. Also, there has never been anything but Office 2010 loaded on either computer. Thanks again for your help.
I might be able to work up an MCVE, but I'm struggling to see why this is a bug. I wouldn't expect extract interface to re-write anything for me other than the interface I attempted to extract. If it can't immediately be compiled, that's way to high a bar for me to find it useful.
@Comintern speaking of compilability(?) - EIR is probably the most problematic - it's too easy to arrive in an uncompilable state (you didn't implement this member!) so I'm not sure that this is a valid metric for this specific refactoring.
> "Do you think your manager knows what they're doing?" - Depends. I think they're somewhat okay at coding and pretty good at managering and their research. I wouldn't trust them with any C code though.
@this Right - in this specific case though, all of the options go too far I think. If the assumption is that the user is in the middle of creating a class interface structure, then it should metaphorically stay off my interface's lawn while I'm doing it.
At some point we need to draw a line and say "if the user wants to do this, the user knows what they are doing".
Back to the EIR - I was digressing - earlier I was commenting about botched rename being bad thing. Is an incomplete interface implementation really the same thing? Seems not.
If I mess up the extract interface, it's usually undoable
'Implementation.cls - instancing doesn't matter.
Implements Interface
'Interface.cls - instancing public
Public Property Get Foo() As Implementation
End Property
@this I'm thinking of Steve's previous rename issue, where they had late-bound identifiers that RD couldn't possibly resolve, yet should have been part of the rename
> Is the interface being extracted instanced as PublicNotCreateable? That's the only way I can replicate this, and it's resolved by changing the interface to Private. Not that on my build, the instancing is Private when the interface is created.
> Is the interface being extracted instanced as PublicNotCreateable? That's the only way I can replicate this, and it's resolved by changing the interface to Private. Note that on my build, the instancing is Private when the interface is created.
> I've tried compiling after changing the instancing to private and publicnotcreatable for the class and the interface. I get the circular references error in both cases.
> I just took a look at the code you posted, and the issue is related to `Public Enum ConcernType` and `Public Enum LocationType`. You're exposing these on members of the interface, but they are declared on the implementing class. All you should need to do in this case to make it compile is move the enumerations that are used by the interface to the interface.
I'm thinking we should probably include public `Enum`s in the refactoring.
The thing with enums in COM is that they aren't enforced strictly like they are in .NET - they're basically just an int. The "enum" is more of a convenient "group of named aliases".
But I swear, there was a case where if you try to use the public enum as part of the document/class module, you will get an "cannot expose on object module blah blah" error.
---------------------------
Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications
---------------------------
Compile error:
Cannot define a Public user-defined type within an object module
---------------------------
OK Help
---------------------------
aye. IMO an enum that needs to be seen on an interface and the classes that implement it, belongs in the interface module - that way it's much easier to find when you later want to add a member to it
hmm I wonder if I ran into another case where enum was problematic on a class module.
Because honestly for both UDT and enums, they get the same treatment from me -- if I want it, they have to go into standard module and I don't like that.
'IClass1
Option Explicit
Public Enum IEnum
Bar
Baz
End Enum
Private Function Foo() As IEnum
Err.Raise 5 'TODO implement interface member
End Function
'Class1
Option Explicit
Implements IClass1
Private Function IClass1_Foo() As Long
Err.Raise 5 'TODO implement interface member
End Function
A company I was interested in just flew me out for an interview. It was on the other side of the country so they paid for my flight and hotel. Unfortunately, the interview went disastrously. I blew every question and I could tell that they didn't like me personally.
When I got to the airport ...
Since you tagged this vba, I thought you were adding the sheet using code, but your comment indicates that you're "clicking the add new sheet button", so I'm not sure which you're after.
If you're doing this in code, Google* msdn worksheet.copy for documentation on the command.
If you're doin...
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking