@AF Clarification Needed...

[Stanley - stanlyn-com]

Thanks Ken,

>> I guarantee that if you look at the files where this is "working" that
you will see that all of the fields are in the same group.  (ie: "I1)",
"I2)", and "I3)", rather than "I2)", "D2)", and "Q2)".)

Like I said, if I define the table as
60- I2) Item #1
61- I2) Item #2
62- I2) Item #3
63- I2) Item #4
64- I2) Item #5
65- I2) Item #6
...
70- D2) Desc #1
71- D2) Desc #2
72- D2) Desc #3
73- D2) Desc #4
74- D2) Desc #5
75- D2) Desc #6
It works as expected... if the @af instance is 5, and I write
D2)="Test", then field 74 will be updated to "Test" 

Now, if I define the table as 
60- I2) Item #1
61- D2) Desc #1

70- I2) Item #2
71- D2) Desc #2

80- I2) Item #3
81- D2) Desc #3

90- I2) Item #4
91- D2) Desc #4

Now, if the @af instance is 2, and I write
D2)="Test", then field 61 gets updated to "Test", instead of field 71

Fields 60, 70, 80, and 90 are all part of the @af group "I2)" and 
Fields 61, 71, 81, and 91 are all part of the @af group "D2".  The approach
does not work the same way as the fields in the @af group that are
contiguous.

>> you have given the fields different group letters, making the separate
and distinct
No I haven't, I've explained that above.

Stanley






-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Brody [mailto:kenbrody at spamcop.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 1:17 PM
To: Stanley - stanlyn-com
Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
Subject: Re: @AF Clarification Needed...

On 10/4/2011 12:39 PM, Stanley - stanlyn-com wrote:
>>> Can you define "having problems with @AF"?
> Yes Ken,
[...]
> @wlfI2)
> If  : I2) eq ".sh"
> Then: G2)="6055-475" ; I2)="SHIPPING" ; D2)="Shipping"
>
> The debugger is reporting I2)=.sh as it should, @af is eq to 5 as it
should,
> now the problem... D2), Q2), M2) are all showing their values from the 1st
> set as if @af=1, and will proceed to overwrite them.
>
> I have never experienced this when the associated fields are contiguous.
[...]

What you are experiencing has nothing to do with whether the fields are 
contiguous in the file definition.  And, given the same fields, but set 
contiguously in the definition, you will see the exact same behavior.

The problem you are experiencing is due to the fact that you have given the 
fields different group letters, making the separate and distinct.  Within 
the event for one of the I* groups, only references to fields in the I* 
group will be affected by @AF.

I guarantee that if you look at the files where this is "working" that you 
will see that all of the fields are in the same group.  (ie: "I1)", "I2)", 
and "I3)", rather than "I2)", "D2)", and "Q2)".)

-- 
Kenneth Brody