realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Rs.field() vs rs.idxfield()

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Rs.field() vs rs.idxfield()
From: "Peter E. Barck" <sirujo at bu dot edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:20:00 -0500
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <BDD3E705 dot 17DE2%list at lajdesignsw dot com> <a06200706bdd44457f074 at [10 dot 10 dot 13 dot 4]>
At 9:24 PM -0600 12/1/04, Luke Jackson wrote:

    I have seen this same behavior with the RB DB (new format). I don't
think that I reported it because I just switched to the idxfield and kept
going.

Well I hope somebody takes the time to report it.

Best,
- Joe

I have never seen this problem. I use the new RB DB extensively almost every day in many different developments. I use mostly rs.Field().xxtype. The only time I use the IndexField is when I manipulate the DB schema. The only failures I saw were due to my field label mis-typos. -- Just a data point on this subject

--
   Cheers,
   Peter

   TI PowerBook  G4, 1.GHz, 1GB RAM, OSX 10.3.4, RB 5.5.4
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>