"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter T wrote:
In 97-2003 the Arc.Add arguments are X1, Y1, X2, Y2. Point-2 can be to
the left and/or above Point1.

In 2007 the arguments are L, T, W, H, the bottom-right must be
bottom-right! If really need to use Arcs.Add would need to keep this in
mind and use horizontal & vertical flip methods if/as necessary. It does
mean catering differently for 2007 and earlier versions. Better though
for consistency, if nothing else, to use Shapes.AddShape msoShapeArc etc.

Trouble is that is *not* what it delivers.

For L = W it works OK
But L < W it draws an arc with effective arguments L+W/2, T, W, H

Assuming you mean 2007 it works as predicted and as I described for me

Dim a As Arc

Set a = ActiveSheet.Arcs.Add(100, 200, 300, 400)
With a
Debug.Print .Left, .Top, .Width, .Height
End With




The y coordinates are handled correctly.

This is why his original 10,10 start with radius 200 drifts across the
page. I haven't tried msoShapeArc but I expect it shares this quirk.

You could argue either way as to which is the more logical method (ie
which set of arguments), but I agree it should have simply stayed the
same. Don't

Changing it after so long was a disaster and broke a lot of legacy code.
BTW Can you get MS Help to show the argument list for Arc.Add in XL2007?
If so what keywords will get it to display?

hold your breath though in the expectation it will be changed. The entire
DrawingObjects was maintained in 97 only for legacy reasons with earlier
versions. However many operations work very significantly faster at this
'level and fortunately it's still exposed (almost), but by more favour
rather than obligation. I suspect it was not straightforward as the
entire drawing system in 2007 is radically different to previous
versions.

And glacially slow to boot. Race conditions exist in the chart and graph
axes drawing steps when used directly from VBA :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

Regards,
Peter T





"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
gazzer wrote:
I have "inherited" a number of legacy worksheets that use, I believe,
the pre Excel 97 via VBA drawing object model to plot complex diagrams
on a number of sheets. These work perfectly in all versions of Excel
up and to Excel 2003, but now give problems when running under Excel
2007 (although the VBA compiles OK) . In Excel 2007 the positioning
and rotation of the arcs (and to some extent other drawing items). are
totally different in Xl 2007 A simply example of the code I have is
show below:

Sub DrawArc()
With ActiveSheet.Arcs.Add(10, 10, 200, 200)
With .Border
.LineStyle = xlContinuous
.Weight = xlThin
End With
End With
End Sub

If I run the above example in Excel 2003, the arc starts in cell A1 and
ends in E14, but in Excel 2007 it starts in cell E1 and ends in I14.
Effectively the drawing routines in the worksheets are now rendered
useless under 2007 because of this. Is this a known compatibility
issue? And my question really is, is there a workaround or am I faced
with having to rewrite the code, (which is quite a major task), to get
make the worksheets useable under 2007?
Fraid so. You are lucky the code actually compiled in XL2007 without
major errors. They changed the Shape object model gratuitously so as to
break almost everything that depends on exact positioning.

They seem to have completely wrecked .Arcs.Add
It is FUBAR and with no plausible work around that I can see.

Under certain circumstances the X coordinate of the start of the curve
has half the x radius added! And you can't use negative start positions.

You may find the output of the following test piece amusing:

Sub DrawArc()
For r = 10 To 220 Step 10
With ActiveSheet.Arcs.Add(100, 400, r, r) '' fails r100
End With
With ActiveSheet.Arcs.Add(200, 200, r, 100) '' fails r200
End With
With ActiveSheet.Arcs.Add(300, 10, 100, r) '' OK since 100<300
End With
Next r
End Sub

I suggest a bug report to MickeySoft. I don't know what they were
smoking when they coded this. It isn't even consistent about the
handling of X and Y and it all goes to pot when Xradius Xstart

Horribly broken doesn't being to describe it.

Regards,
Martin Brown