I worked for a company like that. The lead programmer had tables linked by recno(), so if one record gets deleted or corrupted, the tables go out-of-sync. How do you find the missing record? LOL
________________________________ From: Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:42 PM Subject: RE: Are NESTED LOCATED Allowed? Isn't it more fun to make complicated code? Come on - you read the webpages that people previously posted here. If I make it complicated - it will have make it difficult for other programmer to understand my Code - giving me Job Security! HA! But - yeah - I'm already looking to switch to Scan's... -K- -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Are NESTED LOCATED Allowed? Don't let me dissuade you, but it looks too complicated and too fragile. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:14 PM Subject: RE: Are NESTED LOCATED Allowed? Ouch Michael - that HURTS!!! Actually - the code I showed - that was MY NEW Code - just created today. OR, maybe I am just a Legacy programmer. FYI - the comments in the Code explain some of why I wrote the code and what it does. I guess its time to crawl back under my Legacy Rock... :-) -K- -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Are NESTED LOCATED Allowed? There's got to be a better way to do this. Is this legacy code? ----- Original Message ----- From: Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:01 PM Subject: RE: Are NESTED LOCATED Allowed? Hey Matt - you SCARED ME for a Second there - but, alas - ONLY a Second! Glad to know you don't think I am TOTALLY a Moron!!! HA HA! I agreed. I wasn't sure about that the LOCATE command hand any kind of "Scope" to it - and, even before Nesting them - I was wondering if it was A VALID thing to do. But, just an FYI - I did it only in relation to the SCAN Command - which happens to "Intelligently" Know WHICH DBF it is operating on - and will Automatically Select the proper DBF and Skip to the Next record - without you telling it to do that. So - that was my thinking. Of course, LOCATE goes WAY Back in Fox History - so, maybe it was a Bad AssUMption! Guess I will have to track the Found's in special var's - like you suggested - although I already did the switching back to the proper DBF's as its already required before a CONTINUE. Thanks again Matt - and, no bad feelings - just do NOT Let it happen again!!! :-) -K- -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of M Jarvis Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Are NESTED LOCATED Allowed? > I actually looked in the Online Help before posting this question - and > the help for the LOCATE Command is Skimpy at best. So - I am curious to > know if its allowed - since I am doing it - but, the program is NOT > giving me the proper results - and I am wondering if its because you are > not actually Allowed to do Nested LOCATE/CONTINUE Commands! Kurt- Please don't take this personally, but WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?????? Just kidding... What would make you think that the LOCATE command has a 'scope' in relation to the table, logical condition and record pointers. It does not AFAIK. If LOCATE is how you want to do this you'll want to keep track of all your FOUND()'s and deal with them with a SELECT TheOtherTable and a GOTO ThisRecNo kinda thing... When I wrote VFP code I used a LOCATE a lot and that's how I dealt with it... -- Matt Jarvis Eugene, Oregon USA [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/289ea162f5642645b5cf64d624c66a140e260...@us-ny-mail-002.waitex.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
