I am creating a number of calculation functions which will exist
within a class object. The properties used in the function may not
have been given a value so I need an efficient way to determine this
and acting accordingly. I can see about 3 options - all with
drawbacks - so am hoping someone could give me some guidance on which
is good practice and of course if there is a better alternative! I
wonder if vb.net offers any insights given that it doesn't support
variants? My options a

1) Declare variables as variant and initialise to Null.
Now I can simply carry out the calculation and if any of the variables
is null the function will return Null. Very straight foward but I
would normally steer away from using variants if possible.

2) Declare variables as double and initialise to a value representing
no value (eg. -999)
Now I can test each of the variables before doing the calculation.
This itself seems to be somewhat of an overhead though and also means
that when I call other properties (which are themselves calculations)
I need to pass them first to a variable and test them rather than
using them directly in my function. If I could use zero as my "no
value" constant it would work in much the same way as Null for
variants but for division would give an error.

3) Create my own variable type as follows
Type Number
val as double
hasval as integer '0 if no, 1 if yes
end Type

Now I can multiply .hasval for each property and if any of them are 0
it will return 0.

Very interested to hear how others have handled this issue since it
must have come up before.

Thanks a lot,
Andrew

Where is the data coming from that is passed to the class?
Maybe it better to validate the data before being passed to that class as
you are then
closer to the source and can test more appropiately/specific.
In general there is a bit more information needed about what exactly you are
doing.

RBS


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
I am creating a number of calculation functions which will exist
within a class object. The properties used in the function may not
have been given a value so I need an efficient way to determine this
and acting accordingly. I can see about 3 options - all with
drawbacks - so am hoping someone could give me some guidance on which
is good practice and of course if there is a better alternative! I
wonder if vb.net offers any insights given that it doesn't support
variants? My options a

1) Declare variables as variant and initialise to Null.
Now I can simply carry out the calculation and if any of the variables
is null the function will return Null. Very straight foward but I
would normally steer away from using variants if possible.

2) Declare variables as double and initialise to a value representing
no value (eg. -999)
Now I can test each of the variables before doing the calculation.
This itself seems to be somewhat of an overhead though and also means
that when I call other properties (which are themselves calculations)
I need to pass them first to a variable and test them rather than
using them directly in my function. If I could use zero as my "no
value" constant it would work in much the same way as Null for
variants but for division would give an error.

3) Create my own variable type as follows
Type Number
val as double
hasval as integer '0 if no, 1 if yes
end Type

Now I can multiply .hasval for each property and if any of them are 0
it will return 0.

Very interested to hear how others have handled this issue since it
must have come up before.

Thanks a lot,
Andrew

The data will normally be coming from a userform or XL itself. The
idea is that the class will calculate what it can based on the inputs
it has. A "null" entry is valid and just means that value is unknown
at the moment - but if a function needs that value for its calculation
then it should also return some form of "null". For example, the
class is able to calculate density of a fluid but only if the fluid
composition, temperature and pressure is known. Other properties
however need less inputs in order to solve. In the userform case,
entering one value (eg. pressure) should display any other values
which can now be calculated. I could try and keep track of what is or
isn't known as it is passed to the class (which gets a bit
complicated) or just attempt the calculation using one of the
approaches already mentioned and return some sort of null value if it
can't solve.

Is that any clearer or more confusing?

Cheers,
Andrew

On Feb 17, 1:52*pm, "RB Smissaert"
wrote:
Where is the data coming from that is passed to the class?
Maybe it better to validate the data before being passed to that class as
you are then
closer to the source and can test more appropiately/specific.
In general there is a bit more information needed about what exactly you are
doing.

RBS

"Andrew" wrote in message

...



I am creating a number of calculation functions which will exist
within a class object. *The properties used in the function may not
have been given a value so I need an efficient way to determine this
and acting accordingly. *I can see about 3 options - all with
drawbacks - so am hoping someone could give me some guidance on which
is good practice and of course if there is a better alternative! *I
wonder if vb.net offers any insights given that it doesn't support
variants? *My options a

1) Declare variables as variant and initialise to Null.
Now I can simply carry out the calculation and if any of the variables
is null the function will return Null. *Very straight foward but I
would normally steer away from using variants if possible.

2) Declare variables as double and initialise to a value representing
no value (eg. -999)
Now I can test each of the variables before doing the calculation.
This itself seems to be somewhat of an overhead though and also means
that when I call other properties (which are themselves calculations)
I need to pass them first to a variable and test them rather than
using them directly in my function. *If I could use zero as my "no
value" constant it would work in much the same way as Null for
variants but for division would give an error.

3) Create my own variable type as follows
Type Number
*val as double
*hasval as integer * *'0 if no, 1 if yes
end Type

Now I can multiply .hasval for each property and if any of them are 0
it will return 0.

Very interested to hear how others have handled this issue since it
must have come up before.

Thanks a lot,
Andrew- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Doesn't make it much clearer to me, but unless speed is an issue then maybe
variants are the best option.

RBS


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
The data will normally be coming from a userform or XL itself. The
idea is that the class will calculate what it can based on the inputs
it has. A "null" entry is valid and just means that value is unknown
at the moment - but if a function needs that value for its calculation
then it should also return some form of "null". For example, the
class is able to calculate density of a fluid but only if the fluid
composition, temperature and pressure is known. Other properties
however need less inputs in order to solve. In the userform case,
entering one value (eg. pressure) should display any other values
which can now be calculated. I could try and keep track of what is or
isn't known as it is passed to the class (which gets a bit
complicated) or just attempt the calculation using one of the
approaches already mentioned and return some sort of null value if it
can't solve.

Is that any clearer or more confusing?

Cheers,
Andrew

On Feb 17, 1:52 pm, "RB Smissaert"
wrote:
Where is the data coming from that is passed to the class?
Maybe it better to validate the data before being passed to that class as
you are then
closer to the source and can test more appropiately/specific.
In general there is a bit more information needed about what exactly you
are
doing.

RBS

"Andrew" wrote in message

...



I am creating a number of calculation functions which will exist
within a class object. The properties used in the function may not
have been given a value so I need an efficient way to determine this
and acting accordingly. I can see about 3 options - all with
drawbacks - so am hoping someone could give me some guidance on which
is good practice and of course if there is a better alternative! I
wonder if vb.net offers any insights given that it doesn't support
variants? My options a

1) Declare variables as variant and initialise to Null.
Now I can simply carry out the calculation and if any of the variables
is null the function will return Null. Very straight foward but I
would normally steer away from using variants if possible.

2) Declare variables as double and initialise to a value representing
no value (eg. -999)
Now I can test each of the variables before doing the calculation.
This itself seems to be somewhat of an overhead though and also means
that when I call other properties (which are themselves calculations)
I need to pass them first to a variable and test them rather than
using them directly in my function. If I could use zero as my "no
value" constant it would work in much the same way as Null for
variants but for division would give an error.

3) Create my own variable type as follows
Type Number
val as double
hasval as integer '0 if no, 1 if yes
end Type

Now I can multiply .hasval for each property and if any of them are 0
it will return 0.

Very interested to hear how others have handled this issue since it
must have come up before.

Thanks a lot,
Andrew- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe another way of looking at is is that I am trying to make my
class object fully "encapsulated". That is, the calculations it
performs could be attached to yet undefined interfaces. As a result I
can't rely on validation at the input source.

Thanks again.



On 17 Feb, 16:48, "RB Smissaert"
wrote:
Doesn't make it much clearer to me, but unless speed is an issue then maybe
variants are the best option.

RBS

"Andrew" wrote in message

...
The data will normally be coming from a userform or XL itself. *The
idea is that the class will calculate what it can based on the inputs
it has. *A "null" entry is valid and just means that value is unknown
at the moment - but if a function needs that value for its calculation
then it should also return some form of "null". *For example, the
class is able to calculate density of a fluid but only if the fluid
composition, temperature and pressure is known. *Other properties
however need less inputs in order to solve. * In the userform case,
entering one value (eg. pressure) should display any other values
which can now be calculated. *I could try and keep track of what is or
isn't known as it is passed to the class (which gets a bit
complicated) or just attempt the calculation using one of the
approaches already mentioned and return some sort of null value if it
can't solve.

Is that any clearer or more confusing?

Cheers,
Andrew

On Feb 17, 1:52 pm, "RB Smissaert"
wrote:



Where is the data coming from that is passed to the class?
Maybe it better to validate the data before being passed to that class as
you are then
closer to the source and can test more appropiately/specific.
In general there is a bit more information needed about what exactly you
are
doing.

RBS

"Andrew" wrote in message

...

I am creating a number of calculation functions which will exist
within a class object. The properties used in the function may not
have been given a value so I need an efficient way to determine this
and acting accordingly. I can see about 3 options - all with
drawbacks - so am hoping someone could give me some guidance on which
is good practice and of course if there is a better alternative! I
wonder if vb.net offers any insights given that it doesn't support
variants? My options a

1) Declare variables as variant and initialise to Null.
Now I can simply carry out the calculation and if any of the variables
is null the function will return Null. Very straight foward but I
would normally steer away from using variants if possible.

2) Declare variables as double and initialise to a value representing
no value (eg. -999)
Now I can test each of the variables before doing the calculation.
This itself seems to be somewhat of an overhead though and also means
that when I call other properties (which are themselves calculations)
I need to pass them first to a variable and test them rather than
using them directly in my function. If I could use zero as my "no
value" constant it would work in much the same way as Null for
variants but for division would give an error.

3) Create my own variable type as follows
Type Number
val as double
hasval as integer '0 if no, 1 if yes
end Type

Now I can multiply .hasval for each property and if any of them are 0
it will return 0.

Very interested to hear how others have handled this issue since it
must have come up before.

Thanks a lot,
Andrew- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, more reason then perhaps to go with variants.

RBS


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
Maybe another way of looking at is is that I am trying to make my
class object fully "encapsulated". That is, the calculations it
performs could be attached to yet undefined interfaces. As a result I
can't rely on validation at the input source.

Thanks again.



On 17 Feb, 16:48, "RB Smissaert"
wrote:
Doesn't make it much clearer to me, but unless speed is an issue then
maybe
variants are the best option.

RBS

"Andrew" wrote in message

...
The data will normally be coming from a userform or XL itself. The
idea is that the class will calculate what it can based on the inputs
it has. A "null" entry is valid and just means that value is unknown
at the moment - but if a function needs that value for its calculation
then it should also return some form of "null". For example, the
class is able to calculate density of a fluid but only if the fluid
composition, temperature and pressure is known. Other properties
however need less inputs in order to solve. In the userform case,
entering one value (eg. pressure) should display any other values
which can now be calculated. I could try and keep track of what is or
isn't known as it is passed to the class (which gets a bit
complicated) or just attempt the calculation using one of the
approaches already mentioned and return some sort of null value if it
can't solve.

Is that any clearer or more confusing?

Cheers,
Andrew

On Feb 17, 1:52 pm, "RB Smissaert"
wrote:



Where is the data coming from that is passed to the class?
Maybe it better to validate the data before being passed to that class
as
you are then
closer to the source and can test more appropiately/specific.
In general there is a bit more information needed about what exactly you
are
doing.

RBS

"Andrew" wrote in message

...

I am creating a number of calculation functions which will exist
within a class object. The properties used in the function may not
have been given a value so I need an efficient way to determine this
and acting accordingly. I can see about 3 options - all with
drawbacks - so am hoping someone could give me some guidance on which
is good practice and of course if there is a better alternative! I
wonder if vb.net offers any insights given that it doesn't support
variants? My options a

1) Declare variables as variant and initialise to Null.
Now I can simply carry out the calculation and if any of the variables
is null the function will return Null. Very straight foward but I
would normally steer away from using variants if possible.

2) Declare variables as double and initialise to a value representing
no value (eg. -999)
Now I can test each of the variables before doing the calculation.
This itself seems to be somewhat of an overhead though and also means
that when I call other properties (which are themselves calculations)
I need to pass them first to a variable and test them rather than
using them directly in my function. If I could use zero as my "no
value" constant it would work in much the same way as Null for
variants but for division would give an error.

3) Create my own variable type as follows
Type Number
val as double
hasval as integer '0 if no, 1 if yes
end Type

Now I can multiply .hasval for each property and if any of them are 0
it will return 0.

Very interested to hear how others have handled this issue since it
must have come up before.

Thanks a lot,
Andrew- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -