@AF Clarification Needed...

[Ken Cole]

Stanley,

What Ken is trying to say here is that @AF only works within associated groups.

So you can say B1=B2*B3 and it will work because it applies @AF to
each of the three arrrays, so in long hand it is like saying:

B1[@AF]=B2[@AF]*B3[@AF]

What DOES NOT WORK is:

B1=C1*D1 or even as you try and to G2= and I2= and D2= because the
first character is different, G, I & D.  @AF only works if the first
character is all G or all I or all D.

Does that help?

Regards

Ken (the other Ken, not Brody) :-)

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Stanley - stanlyn-com
<stanley at stanlyn.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>