John,
Never tried to see how far it would go.....
The real issue is inefficiency....each virtual field requires an additional read from the dictionary in which it is located. Doing this for every item in a report, you can see where the overhead makes chaining virtual fields inefficient.
Not necessarily true.
In the example John described, I think you would get badly hammered with inefficiencies. But ...
if all the virtual fields are in the *same* dictionary, they get collapsed into one at compile time.
Certainly I would recommend never pointing a virtual field at a virtual field in a different file, but wouldn't think twice at pointing virtual fields at each other in the same file (provided they don't use @n syntax !!!)
Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - <http://www.maverick-dbms.org> Open Source Pick ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
