TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: That Visual Basic macro for multiple files (a reprint...)
Subject:Re: That Visual Basic macro for multiple files (a reprint...) From:"Comstock-Fisher, Julie" <jmfisher -at- BUTLERMFG -dot- ORG> Date:Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:01:45 -0500
I was the one who asked about it. Thanks for the response! We have a ton
of Word documents that have been uploaded to our intranet site. All of
them need to be converted to read-only, and I will probably use this
concept as the base for a macro that will do the conversion. If I come
up with something good, I'll repost it to the list.
FWIW, I did search the archive, and couldn't find it. I must have been
having a dumb day.
Food is an important part of a balanced diet. --Fran Lebowitz
....................................................................
...............................................Julie Comstock-Fisher
.......................................Technical Writer (Consultant)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM [SMTP:JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 6:25 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: That Visual Basic macro for multiple files (a
> reprint...)
>
> A week or two back, someone asked about a Visual Basic macro that
> processes
> multiple files. I thought they might be referring to an old post of
> mine, but
> for the life of me couldn't find the code they were requesting (I
> think I was
> at a client site when I did.)
>