That's the whole point though. I didn't know I had too many specifically
because I had hit the limit. Therefore, when the error message said I had
too many, I was looking elsewhere for the problem (eg, do the number of
arguments being passed match the number of arguments in the function, etc).
Eventually when I checked everything out, I came to the conclusion I had
probably hit a limit, but in a roundabout way. I appreciate your comments,
but it's really neither here nor there at this point. I was simply stating
an opinion that a more definitive error message when you hit the limit would
be useful.

"Bob Phillips" wrote:

That seems unnecessarily trite. If you know you have too many, rather than
try to get to the number one less than the max, you look at a re-design.
Pushing to the boundaries is rarely a good idea.

--

HTH

RP
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)


"Peter M" wrote in message
...
Depends on how you look at it. It's true that the current error message,
stictly speaking, does cover hitting the argument number limit. But if you
are not aware of the limit to begin with, as in my case, you waste a lot
of
time counting arguments, etc, trying to figure out what's wrong, when a
simple message saying you've hit the limit would have been infinitely more
helpful. Luckily I have enough previous programming experience that it
occured to me that there may be a limit.

"Myrna Larson" wrote:

it just says you are trying to pass too many arguments for
the function, instead of you've hit the limit.

There's a difference there?