Razzak, Well if you think it would help, yes - as Albert has suggested there may be a better way to do what I am doing, which is just really looking up a table to match values.
The IHASH command was working fine until I added the longer strings and then I spent some time trying to work out why my lookups returned the wrong descriptions. It took a while to sort out the reason for this as I expected that IHASH would work OK with numbers in the text (which it did with all the other entries in my table), but obviously the algorithm must have some limit as far as returning unique integers with long strings - maybe this should be mentioned in the Help entry. The RHASH function would no doubt increase the 'limit' on string lengths - but I will leave the decision on that up to the good people at RBTI. Thanks for looking at the 'problem'. Regards, John Docherty -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Razzak Memon Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:54 a.m. To: RBG7-L Mailing List Subject: [RBG7-L] - Re: IHASH Command At 05:23 PM 2/21/2005, John Docherty wrote: >Thanks for that, but I note that if I reduce the length of the >text (including the three 'numeric' characters at the start) I >get different values from the Hash command. Does IHASH need an >alternative function RHASH (a real value) to cater for longer >strings? So, you want us to add a new function for you. Right? Very Best R:egards, Razzak. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.306 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 21/02/2005
