Eric, I'm glad you're finding a way around your problem. I don't think it was R:Base forcing you into bad practices, it was bad planning by your predecessors. Now please take a couple of deep breaths and relax. Thousands of programmers have been living with these features for many years, and a lot of us like them. Even if we don't particularly like them, they don't prevent us from getting our work done.
No product will always be so flexible that you don't have to learn its features and limitations. What you find a limitation of R:Base here, many of us find a valuable feature, that prevents the dreaded "data type mismatch" you could get on a join in a different database manager that allowed different data types. These two features of R:Base -- the "common column name" feature of forms, and the domain restrictions on data types -- are features of R:Base that have been around since way before ANSI SQL-89, and had they been removed from any version along the way, thousands of old forms would have stopped working. In 1986, I was teaching R:Base courses that said: "Never use the same name for columns in two different tables unless you expect to match rows from the two tables by those values." And David Blocker was teaching that same course for years before I started. I also take slight issue to your claim that these items are in tables that are "without any relationship." If they were truly unrelated, you wouldn't have had any reason to be locating both tables on the same form. Bill On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:51:06 -0600, Eric Peterson wrote: >I want things done right this time around, and Rbase is forcing me into >bad practices. > ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
