Assuming you work out the kinks in your code above - You are still not suppressing the XP bug. You are just hiding the evidence.
The gibberish output indicates that memory is at least being read inappropriately. Heaven help you if memory is also being written to inappropriately. Even if the bogus error message is redirected to nul, I still can envision unpredictable nasty consequences.
From one of your prior posts in another thread:
Ed Dyreen wrote:You should know that although the for ' bug is ugly, it does not cause my script to crash.
So I am ignoring it for now...
There is one more thing. when I run my script many times in VM, letting it define many variables.
After a while the script starts running slowly. Some sort of memory leak ?
Hmmm, Perhaps there is a correlation between your performance problem and the ignored bug
I'm not saying there is or isn't. But it certainly is a possibility. I would never want to rely on code that exhibits the XP FOR bug.
Ed Dyreen wrote:We both want to solve it don't we ?
Yes, but I think you are chasing unicorns with your current direction.
I'm very close to success with these
proposed ideas that you have seen before. I've still got a few kinks to work out, and there are a few inaccuracies in the post. But it should be enough to get you on track.
My development efforts are stalled due to other responsibilities. But I still hope to publish my results within the next 6 weeks.
Dave Benham