hashing location of the new id is probably not the same as the old id, so the record will still have to be removed/deleted from the original group before writing it to new group.
Roger > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wendy Smoak > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [U2] Longstanding aversion to CNAME? > > > It seems that CNAME is not a popular UniBasic command. Is there some > history here I'm not aware of, maybe it was unreliable? > > From a UniBasic program, why would you open a file, read a record, write > it back to the same file under a different key, then delete the original > record, when you could just: > > X.CMD = "CNAME filename ":X.ID:',':X.NEW.ID > EXECUTE X.CMD > > No changes to the data are required. For example, if a bunch of records > get written with the wrong date embedded in the key. > > This situation came up on info-datatel. Here, it happens so rarely that > it's barely worth worrying about-- I'm just curious. ------- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
