> ^l20d0h:0026h::GenTriggerClass::MSG_META_SEND_CLASSED_EVENT(3cf0h 0002
> h 3cf0h) (@12, ^l20d0h:0026h)
> 99: far GenOutputAction(), 8e47h:06bdh
> 101: call ^l20d0h:0026h::GenTriggerClass::MSG_GEN_OUTPUT_ACTION(0000h
0002h
> 3cf
> 0h) (@13, ^l20d0h:0026h)
> 105: far GenProcessAction(target = Unconnected (chunk = 0002h)), 8e47h:
> 0824h
> 106: far GenTriggerSendMessage(), 8e47h:095ah
> 108: call
^l20d0h:0026h::GenTriggerClass::MSG_GEN_TRIGGER_SEND_ACTION(0000h
> 000
> 4h 3902h) (@14, ^l20d0h:0026h)
Okay, I'm not **REAL** sure, but from what I remember what Paul Chen relayed
to me and John about illegal handles, and from this SWAT readout...the line
"105: far GenProcessAction(target=Unconnected (chunk = 0002h)), 8e47h:0824h"
indicates a problem and the illegal handle should reside in the fact that
this chunk statement doesn't equal 0. Remember John?
When you backtrace as long as you have, usually the last message is where
your problem starts...in this case your call to GenTriggerClass starts the
problem. If I remember correctly, one of the things you were trying to do a
little while ago, was to "subclass" and use a trigger differently....if I
were you...that is where I would start looking.
Lee