Subfolders collection of FilesystemObject has a count

[CharlesChuckieCharles]

Subfolders collection of FilesystemObject has a count but you can't reference it?

Subfolders.Count = 12 prefect

Folder.Subfolders(11) not allowed - errors Error 5 Invalid procedure call or argument

likewise

Folder.subfolders.Item(X)

Is the Count of any use other than to tell how many there are?

 

[RoryA]

Is the Count of any use other than to tell how many there are?

Um, what else would the Count be for?

 

[CharlesChuckieCharles]

If I have 12 sub folders in a folder

why can't I use


For x = 0 to Subfolders.Count -1

Debug.Print Subfolders(x)

next x

Or

For x = 0 to Subfolders.Count -1

Debug.Print Subfolders.Item(x).Name

next x

etc

 

[RoryA]

Because the subfolders collection is indexed by name, not number. It's more efficient to iterate using For Each anyway.

 

[CharlesChuckieCharles]

Thanks Rory for that pointer

I found another explaination ( that if it had been in the HELP or on MSDN would have been enough )

"Cerian Knight ::
Count is already part of the primary layer by design, just type Dir at a command prompt to see the number.
If you read the count and store it, then delete a file, and then re-read the count, it should be different than what you stored.
Your stored value could cause problems in that case.
The same would apply to an index if you stored it for reuse.
Would it point to the same file if you tried to use it? Sure, probably, but for how long?
The problem is that there is no mechanism in the directory structure to pin a file to an index location for any guaranteed amount of time. "


But does that mean the Subfolders collection is updated by processes outside (ie other user updates to a network directory being reflected in my running code)... I think not

 

[RoryA]

All it really means is that relying on a numeric index is no guarantee that you would get a specific file (much like using Worksheets(1) in Excel). It's not relevant to looping by index number to simply process every file but, as I said, For Each is generally better for that anyway.