@AF Clarification Needed...

[Stanley - stanlyn-com]

>> Given the @WLFI2 example you posted before, any reference to D2 in that
event handler will always refer to the first D2.

@wlfI2)
If  : I2) eq ".sh" 
Then: G2)="6055-475" ; I2)="SHIPPING" ; D2)="Shipping"

Even if @af is equal to 2 or 3 or whatever???
Why would it reference the first D2) when @af equals 5 instead of the 5th
reference of D2) as it should???

Stanley





-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Brody [mailto:kenbrody at spamcop.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:55 PM
To: Stanley - stanlyn-com
Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
Subject: Re: @AF Clarification Needed...

On 10/4/2011 10:03 PM, Stanley - stanlyn-com wrote:
> 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"

Given the @WLFI2 example you posted before, any reference to D2 in that 
event handler will always refer to the first D2.

> 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.

Whether the associated fields are contiguous or not has zero effect on how 
referring to the field by the group name (ie: "I2" or "D2" in the above 
examples) works.

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

Then contact fpsupport and arrange to send them a file which demonstrates 
the behavior you describe above, as that goes against how associated fields 
have worked since version 1.0 came out.

In particular, an example that shows that making them contiguous "works" 
even though you are using different group letters.

I guarantee that the file in which this "works" has processing different 
than the example you showed.

-- 
Kenneth Brody