Agreed, and I do have an "under the covers" autonumber PK for this table. The reason for the second column has to do with coordination with a previously installed billing system that was indifferently maintained: individuals exist in multiple records. Therefore, our new clinical tracking software (The Glorious R:BASE 2000 (ver 6.5++), Build: 1.851xRT03, BTW) needs to be able to both generate a "new" case number and track their "old" case number.
Yep, it's a kludge, but a necessary evil for all of that. Regards and thanks to all. Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of MikeB Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Edited autonumber Autonumbering should never be used in the context to have any real world meaning to the user. If you need a number that is to hold a meaning, you should develop your own numbering scheme. ================================================ 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 ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
