*blink* That's neat.

[John W. Baxter]

In article <3fMY4.28915$WS3.322429 at typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Stephen Hansen" 
<stephen at cerebralmaelstrom.com> wrote:

>     I'm tired. That's about the only thing I can say in response after
> actually READING what I posted and then shaking my head in shame :) What I
> actually wanted was:
> 
>     if (case != 0) and (case != 1):

Hmmm...my years around these beasts (starting in the 1950s) suggest that 
*any* time I use "not" with "and" or "or" (or other spellings of not, 
and, or), I had better slow down and make very sure that I'm writing 
what I mean.  So much debug time is thus saved.

So don't hang your head in shame...you highlighted a problematic area.

   --John (who can mess these constructs up slowly almost as often as 
fast)

-- 
John W. Baxter   Port Ludlow, WA USA  jwbnews at scandaroon.com