Problems with Sort/Selection processing on associated fields.

[Boaz Bezborodko]

Kenneth Brody wrote:
> Quoting Boaz Bezborodko (Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:26:08 -0500):
> [...]
>> OK, trying to keep track of the data by counting the occurrences doesn't
>> work because a) they are sometimes entered out of order and b) there are
>> sometimes blank fields in the middle.  This means that even though you
>> can select a specific record from the index the Sort/Selection process
>> cannot tell you which associated field is the one that that index 
>> points to.
>>
>> Am I wrong in thinking that this is a bug?
>
> Short answer:  Yes.  :-)
>
> Long answer:
>
> What if more than one member of the group met the selection criteria?  
> What
> if none of them did, but the record was selected because of some other 
> "OR"
> part of the selection set?
>
> However, if you are also sorting on that group, then the selection 
> will be
> based solely on the individual members of the group as they are entered
> into the sort, and @AF will point to that particular member.  (Of course,
> the above two scenarios come into play as well.)
>
So if I was going through Sort/Selection based an index with a date 
field, the record #, and associated field A1 and I was sorting on A1 
then @AF will point to that particular member?