realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Subject: Re: Rs.field() vs rs.idxfield()
From: list at lajdesignsw dot com
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Importance: Normal
References: <20041202093223 dot 94BEF59FD94 at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
I will see if I can duplicate it again. It was quite a while back that I
ran into that.

Luke

> Message: 19
> 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
>
>>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>