Search results

Of course, and there also is the "Windows Sandbox," which seems to be a "VM-lite," although I haven't had reason to look into it until now.

That's the obvious safe route. I worked extensively with VMware on Linux for more than a decade, so that's familiar ground. VirtualBox is quite similar. I've known of Proxmox for years but haven't had hands on. It looks preliminarily as if VMware Player, the free version of Workstation...

Thanks. The VM approach is, of course, the most iron-clad solution. I'm currently running Windows on bare metal, so don't for the time being have the (relevant) hypervisor and VM catalog setup I've had before. It's familiar ground, though, just a bit more friction. I'm pretty certain A2003...

FYI, ******** has posted a teaser on this topic specifically, in recent days.

I am contemplating a temporary installation of A2003 to convert some earlier format MDBs that A2007 et seq. cannot open, to A2003 MDB format, which the later versions can open. It's easiest to do this on my production workstation, on which resides Office 2019, 64-bit. Published sources suggest...

I don't know what it means for a file to "live in native Linux." I do know what it means for a file to exist in a file system, for a file server to provide it to a client, to be opened, and to be executed. An ACCDB can exist without difficulty on a Samba share of a Linux or other filesystem...

We also don't conflate a kernel-based virtual machine with those running on other hypervisors. It isn't a generic term. Used generically, it is ambiguous.

False. False. No such drawbacks exist. An ACCDB on a Linux Samba share of a directory on an ext4 file system can readily be opened directly to do each and every one of these things. I've done all of them countless times, without a hint of difficulty. Spinning off into tangential discussions...

My development machine for years was a Win10 VM running on VMWare Workstation on Ubuntu Linux. All files were on Samba shares on an ext4 partition on the same machine. I never encountered even a hiccup with an Access back end file. In fact, the machine had no NTFS partitions at all. Even the...

Actually, an Access BE runs fine when on an ext4 partition with Samba authentication running on Linux. I did it for years. An Access BE doesn't run in place, it's opened by the FE.

Agreed. Cheers.

I understand well the distinction between compiled and interpreted code. No reason exists to suggest otherwise. I also don't conflate expansion with compilation. So, among other things, this means I do not call symbol-table isolation a design defect. Bash is indeed the Bourne (Again) SHell...

I take the point and understand why you might think that. Actually, I'm casting desperately for understanding for want of documentation providing it. My only expectations are those that someone else's documentation articulate. When someone else's language deviates from someone else's...

[facepalm] Of course. I stand corrected, and thanks. Good to know about that. I'm careful with scope so don't usually require them but things happen.

I finally got a readable presentation of your code and thanks for the ideas. Yes, all those things will work. This is just one step in a refactoring exercise that I describe in my response to @MajP 's comment. The data will migrate to a table in time but that has some dependencies and for...

Backslashes are the escape character in C and Bash. It operates to quote the immediately following character in a string. This usage is a bit of Access' C++ code making it past compilation.

Oh, God. Numeric strings and an ambiguous operator to boot. The result is actually correct. The question is whether it's numeric or a string. It should be a string and this should be numeric: Eval(("1"+"1")) but (should <> is)

Philipp, I discovered this morning that Eval() also fails with references to local functions. So, starting with a standard module named "stdBas": Option Compare Database Option Explicit Public Const MyConstant As String = "ConstantString" Function MyFunction() As String MyFunction =...

That's a big "if," actually. The reason? Several but I'll start with criteria expressions, which, when required and for all their pickiness, are isolated from expansion before being submitted at runtime for expansion and submission. So, Eval() fails because either (a) its argument isn't...

Yes, exactly. That's the design failure. My point is that Eval() would not fail if it instead were implemented essentially as a subclassed compiler to exclusively evaluate its argument.