RE: [U2] DCOUNT
Mark Johnson wrote:
REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields
by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync.
That's more code.
You can do multiple removes on different MV strings instead of keeping a
counter and referencing the associated fields as RECX,X.
For example:
LOOP
REMOVE VAR1 FROM REC15 SETTING DELIM
REMOVE VAR2 FROM REC16 SETTING NOTHING
...
{ do something with the variables }
WHILE DELIM REPEAT
Larry Hiscock
Western Computer Services
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 1/3/2006
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] DCOUNT
If we where obj orientated we could have REC15.dcount but alas no
On 1/6/06, Larry Hiscock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields
by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync.
That's more code.
You can do multiple removes on different MV strings instead of keeping a
counter and referencing the associated fields as RECX,X.
For example:
LOOP
REMOVE VAR1 FROM REC15 SETTING DELIM
REMOVE VAR2 FROM REC16 SETTING NOTHING
...
{ do something with the variables }
WHILE DELIM REPEAT
Larry Hiscock
Western Computer Services
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 1/3/2006
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
This is the way we always do it. For associations, you might be better off creating a separate set of subroutines that add and delete to rows of associated values. Its just more controlled and you dont end of with uneven columns of data. The system Im working was not designed this way and I was finding tables of data within records that were uneven. We still have a little of that left and I plan to knock that out when we can. Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] DCOUNT I'm finding that I'm doing a lot of programming for the processing through multi-valued attributes. I'm wondering if the method I'm using is the best way to determine the last element. LAST=DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) FOR I=1 TO LAST (process something) NEXT I There was a REMOVE thread a few months ago and I use that when I expect that the number of elements could test the patience of the EXTRACTs. REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync. That's more code. I know that in VB certain object array variables (a list box for example) has a property for the number of elements. Is there anything in MV that I'm not aware of for determining the last multi-value that's easier to type than the DCOUNT expression. I'm looking at reducing my keystrokes. Thanks in advance. Mark Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release Date: 1/5/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release Date: 1/5/2006 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
But this doesn't save much on the typing front, which apparently is the
real objective of the question :-(
However, with a 'smart' pre-compiler you can achieve your OO objectives,
AND(or) reduce typing. (Of course we have such a beast within our Visage
environment)
There are some other advantages to this pre-compiler approach, like
being able to freely (and easily) change the physical implementation of
something if you DO find that there is a more efficient way to work.
For example your pre-compiler directive may look like this :
vl REC 15 mysub
(I've assumed REALLY short names like vl (for a value loop) to reduce
typing, and that mysub is a reference to an internal subroutine to do
something with the variables)
The initial implementation of vl may initially generate code something
like :
LAST = DCOUNT(REC15,@VM)
FOR I = 1 TO LAST
GOSUB mysub
NEXT I
which is a saving on the typing front (my favourite is the
select/readnext/read/write loop). Or perhaps (better) with a small
change to mysub
LAST = DCOUNT(REC15,@VM)
FOR I = 1 TO LAST
THIS.REC = REC15,I
GOSUB mysub
NEXT I
Our next iteration on the journey may generate this code
TEMP.REC15 = REC15
LAST = DCOUNT(TEMP.REC15,@VM)
FOR I = 1 TO LAST
THIS.REC15 = REC151,I
GOSUB mysub
NEXT I
to avoid jumping over the leading 14 attributes every time, and if LAST
was getting big, then we could change the implementation to generate
LOOP
REMOVE THIS.REC15 FROM REC15 SETTING DELIM
GOSUB mysub
WHILE DELIM REPEAT
to gain the advantages of REMOVE (internal pointers for where we were up
to in the string)
The nice thing about this approach is that if you DO find a better way
to do something that you do often, it becomes very easy to change it
everywhere in your application.
(You can also have 'implementations' of things that may generate
something other than Basic code, but that is a whole other story -
suffice to say that this snippet technology also powers our
multi-lingual capabilities)
Within the context of our Visage development, by adopting his technique
we have a single source tree that can generate code that is
targeted/optimised for a particular OS database version type. Whilst
we can debug with the generated code, we develop at a higher (macro)
level
Maybe a long way off topic, but if you are serious about reducing
keystrokes, as part of our Active Code Reduction initiative we have
found that using this type of technique, a single high level
pre-compiler directive may generate 5-50 (or more) lines of efficient,
error-free, local-standards compliant code, resulting in faster
development, and easier maintenance enhancements
Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage Better by Design!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 10:25 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] DCOUNT
If we where obj orientated we could have REC15.dcount but alas no
On 1/6/06, Larry Hiscock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields
by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync.
That's more code.
You can do multiple removes on different MV strings instead of
keeping a
counter and referencing the associated fields as RECX,X.
For example:
LOOP
REMOVE VAR1 FROM REC15 SETTING DELIM
REMOVE VAR2 FROM REC16 SETTING NOTHING
...
{ do something with the variables }
WHILE DELIM REPEAT
Larry Hiscock
Western Computer Services
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] DCOUNT
Mark Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:21:37 -0500 I'm finding that I'm doing a lot of programming for the processing through multi-valued attributes. I'm wondering if the method I'm using is the best way to determine the last element. LAST=DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) FOR I=1 TO LAST (process something) NEXT I If you're working with ASSOCIATED multi-values and you need to process every one, this may be your best bet, although there are some other options. If you just need to process each item in a single multi-valued attribute (without updating the original), you could consider: REC15 = RAISE(REC15) SELECT REC15 TO R15.LIST LOOP WHILE READNEXT MV FROM R15.LIST DO (process MV) REPEAT For example, I use the above syntax to process each line in a sales order, where the multi-value in the order header contains the keys to the individual line items. If your controlling multi-value is sorted and you only need to process a known value, you can use the LOCATE function to find the appropriate spot. With associated multi-values, you'll need to use the INSERT (or DELETE) function on the associated items to add (or remove) value groups from the list. Note that these functions are flavor dependent. --Tom Pellitieri Toledo, Ohio --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] DCOUNT
I personally would even write it like this if I am sure the number of values is no more then ten: FOR I=1 TO DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) (and of course I would not use number as a field position) - Original Message - From: Mark Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:21 AM Subject: [U2] DCOUNT I'm finding that I'm doing a lot of programming for the processing through multi-valued attributes. I'm wondering if the method I'm using is the best way to determine the last element. LAST=DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) FOR I=1 TO LAST (process something) NEXT I There was a REMOVE thread a few months ago and I use that when I expect that the number of elements could test the patience of the EXTRACTs. REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync. That's more code. I know that in VB certain object array variables (a list box for example) has a property for the number of elements. Is there anything in MV that I'm not aware of for determining the last multi-value that's easier to type than the DCOUNT expression. I'm looking at reducing my keystrokes. Thanks in advance. Mark Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this method not require the DCOUNT function to be executed each iteration of I to determine if you have reached your max value? Granted, for a small number of values it would not be that much of a hit but I'd not like to encourage this on the off chance that you use it on a large number of values somewhere else. BobW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serguei Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] DCOUNT I personally would even write it like this if I am sure the number of values is no more then ten: FOR I=1 TO DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) (and of course I would not use number as a field position) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
Which is why he said no more than ten. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Woodward Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:43 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject:RE: [U2] DCOUNT Correct me if I'm wrong but does this method not require the DCOUNT function to be executed each iteration of I to determine if you have reached your max value? Granted, for a small number of values it would not be that much of a hit but I'd not like to encourage this on the off chance that you use it on a large number of values somewhere else. BobW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serguei Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] DCOUNT I personally would even write it like this if I am sure the number of values is no more then ten: FOR I=1 TO DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) (and of course I would not use number as a field position) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
Absolutely correct -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Woodward Sent: January 6, 2006 11:43 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] DCOUNT Correct me if I'm wrong but does this method not require the DCOUNT function to be executed each iteration of I to determine if you have reached your max value? Granted, for a small number of values it would not be that much of a hit but I'd not like to encourage this on the off chance that you use it on a large number of values somewhere else. BobW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serguei Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] DCOUNT I personally would even write it like this if I am sure the number of values is no more then ten: FOR I=1 TO DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) (and of course I would not use number as a field position) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
I'd like to second BobW in NOT using DCOUNT in a FOR line. Certainly when the count is small the overhead is also small, but how many times are we DCOUNTing with certainty that we know the count is less than a particular threshold? Whether the count is zero or higher, I believe it's always better to assign the count to a variable and then loop to the variable; then there's no chance for surprises when the program does encounter an unexpectedly big list. Furthermore, at the risk of offending delicate sensibilities, I take this a step farther and recommend specific variable names for FOR statements. If the list is in a variable called INVOICES, the loop would be: INVOICES.CNT = DCOUNT(INVOICES,@VM) FOR INVOICES.LOOP = 1 TO INVOICES.CNT .. NEXT INVOICES.LOOP (That is, loop variables always end in .LOOP, loop max counts always end in .CNT, and the prefix is the original variable name. It has been my experience that tying the loop max and loop counter to the original variable name (by convention) improves the clarity and purpose of the loop. Your individual results may vary.) This is assuming, of course, that the FOR/NEXT loop is the proper construct for the particular task at hand. If the list is anticipated to be large or there are other extenuating circumstances due to the format of the data being looped through, FOR/NEXT may not be the best choice. -K --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
IMHO it is a bad habit to get into. Bruce M Neylon Health Care Management Group Marilyn Hilb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/06/2006 12:07 PM Please respond to u2-users To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org cc: Subject:RE: [U2] DCOUNT Which is why he said no more than ten. -Original Message- From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Woodward Sent:Friday, January 06, 2006 10:43 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] DCOUNT Correct me if I'm wrong but does this method not require the DCOUNT function to be executed each iteration of I to determine if you have reached your max value? Granted, for a small number of values it would not be that much of a hit but I'd not like to encourage this on the off chance that you use it on a large number of values somewhere else. BobW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serguei Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] DCOUNT I personally would even write it like this if I am sure the number of values is no more then ten: FOR I=1 TO DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) (and of course I would not use number as a field position) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] DCOUNT
Thanks for all that responded. It was not a trick or underhanded question. It was just one of those days when I had programmed DCOUNT about a zillion times and I was wondering if there was any shortcut. It's better than the COUNT function that actually counts something different. I agree that having FOR I=1 to DCOUNT is not a problem with the small counts but dare not consider it as my conscience (the U2 Forum) would frown on it. I've learned a lot from this forum despite my decades of experience as I have not transversed every possible style of coding. My personal collection of styles is gleened from that vast experience of inheriting both good and bad code examples and keeping the best. Thanks Mark Johnson - Original Message - From: Bob Woodward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:42 AM Subject: RE: [U2] DCOUNT Correct me if I'm wrong but does this method not require the DCOUNT function to be executed each iteration of I to determine if you have reached your max value? Granted, for a small number of values it would not be that much of a hit but I'd not like to encourage this on the off chance that you use it on a large number of values somewhere else. BobW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serguei Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] DCOUNT I personally would even write it like this if I am sure the number of values is no more then ten: FOR I=1 TO DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) (and of course I would not use number as a field position) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] re: [u2] DCOUNT
Haven't seen anyone mention vector functions here. Do many people use them? In situations where you are performing identical operations on every value in a dynamic array, I rekon vector functions are a more efficient way of handling multivalues then dcount/loop constructs. A simple example of adding 1 to every attribute; instead of: max = dcount(var15,@vm) for i = 1 to max var15,i += 1 next you use: var15 = adds(var15,reuse(1)) Cheers, Stuart --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] DCOUNT
Goo'day, Mark, At 00:21 05/01/06 -0500, you wrote: I'm finding that I'm doing a lot of programming for the processing through multi-valued attributes. I'm wondering if the method I'm using is the best way to determine the last element. LAST=DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) FOR I=1 TO LAST (process something) NEXT I There was a REMOVE thread a few months ago and I use that when I expect that the number of elements could test the patience of the EXTRACTs. REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync. That's more code. I know that in VB certain object array variables (a list box for example) has a property for the number of elements. Is there anything in MV that I'm not aware of for determining the last multi-value that's easier to type than the DCOUNT expression. I'm looking at reducing my keystrokes. If this is a serious query, might I suggest a water-cooled keyboard? Thanks in advance. Mark Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 04/01/06 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 04/01/06 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] DCOUNT
Over years experience using pick, uv, sb, sb+ I believe that this is the best and most controlled way. Jim Garratt CTI Logistics Ltd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2006 1:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] DCOUNT I'm finding that I'm doing a lot of programming for the processing through multi-valued attributes. I'm wondering if the method I'm using is the best way to determine the last element. LAST=DCOUNT(REC15,@VM) FOR I=1 TO LAST (process something) NEXT I There was a REMOVE thread a few months ago and I use that when I expect that the number of elements could test the patience of the EXTRACTs. REMOVE doesn't give you the MV counter for the associated fields by itself. You have to manage separately and hope to keep in sync. That's more code. I know that in VB certain object array variables (a list box for example) has a property for the number of elements. Is there anything in MV that I'm not aware of for determining the last multi-value that's easier to type than the DCOUNT expression. I'm looking at reducing my keystrokes. Thanks in advance. Mark Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
