Search results

If it's all the same to what ever application is receiving the exported data, just STRING() everything.

Depends upon how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin ....:awink:

Here is is: Right at the beginning on the 4GL LR entry on REPEAT: Begins a block of statements that are processed repeatedly until the block ends in one of several ways. BLOCK PROPERTIES Iteration, record scoping, frame scoping, transactions by default.

That post is irrelevant to what I was saying. You can simply replace the DO with a REPEAT and reduce the transaction scope to 1 record per iteration. That is a FACT. Check your documentation.

Afterthought: And of course there will be more overhead with the DO block, because resources will be consumed in order to provide for possible rollback.

Aha but you are maybe missing the point. I'm talking about the SCOPE of the transaction, not the PRESENCE of one. The DO block carries no implicit transaction services, so it cannot affect the SCOPE of the transaction. A REPEAT block does carry implicit transaction services. Thus, in a DO loop...

Actually the only real change you needed was this: ("DO" blocks do not provide transaction services) DEFINE QUERY q-Table FOR Table. OPEN QUERY q-Table FOR EACH Table WHERE Table.Date >= i-Date BY Table.Date. GET FIRST q-Table. REPEAT WHILE NOT QUERY-OFF-END("q-Table") : [Many things]...

"publishedEventName" needs to be the name an internal procedure in the container that is subscribing to the event of the same name. In your case, it's the data validation procedure you mentioned. Or, you can use the "run-procedure" option if you don't want to default the procedure name to the...

Ok: Buy deefawlt, prawgress reetreeves rekerds yoosing a cher lahk. Savvy?

Well, then perhaps we could all use Esperanza. BTW I see i mispelled possibilities. No doubt I will be hearing from Mr. Powell.

Well, I suppose those are possiblities, and in the spirit of political correctness, your point is well taken. However, Mr. mPowell seems to occasionally demonstrate the ability to post reasonably coherent sentences when he feels like it. After all, if he wants us to take his limited...

I'm convinced that mPowell_esq is a fictional hero, planted by Chris to enhance the entertainment value of this forum. His sentences are too hilariously constructed, his spelling errors too calculatedly amusing for him to be an actual person. But then again, reality can be funnier than fiction...

An admirable quality indeed. Does wonders for W., for example.

No, actually, it has the entire Language reference manual on it. :awink:

Nice one .

Bingo. You win a free roll of Progress toilet paper. :D

Agreed, but for those who don't realize it (I should have mentioned this earlier), there are legitimate reasons for using FIND without the FIRST against a non-unique index. Hm.... I'll make it a trivia question Why indeed? :)

I stand corrected. I am extremely dangerous with SQL. :)

That makes sense. The fields option, which was added after version 6, perhaps even after version 7, I can't remember anymore, reduces network overhead. But, by default, that is, without the fields option, there will be a record in the buffer with all fields. I would have to test what happens if...