Miyako, I think the first iteration of this idea I came across did use bit shifting for storing the table number, as I think about it. I've adopted this approach because it's human-readible and simple. I don't even know if 4D supports tables with more than 1000 fields (probably does now) but that just seems like incredibly - esoteric - design, at best.
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:43 PM Keisuke Miyako via 4D_Tech < [email protected]> wrote: > won't 10K could overflow 32-bit integer? > I would use 32768 as multiplier... > > > 2018/05/19 2:03、Kirk Brooks via 4D_Tech <[email protected]> のメール： > > I can't take credit for making it up and I don't recall where I got the > > idea from. If you are really worried about a table with more than 1000 > > fields use 10k as the multiplier. > > > > > ********************************************************************** > 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) > FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html > Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html > Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech > Unsub: mailto:[email protected] > ********************************************************************** -- Kirk Brooks San Francisco, CA ======================= *We go vote - they go home* ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
