Re: Q: Aborting CONSTRUCT statement

Stylish1 aka stylish1@aol.com wrote: { In article <3b2a2m$1rm@blue.telenet.de>, bscherbaum@telenet.de (Birgit { Scherbaum) writes: { >a CONSTRUCT BY NAME statement with explicitly { >listed table columns suddenly (and repeatedly) { >produced the error message -1108 ('Record not in form'). However, { >all table columns listed in this CONSTRUCT statement also occurred in { >the respective screen form. { > { >Detailled tests showed that the CONSTRUCT statement in this situation { >could cope with up to 15 individually listed columns, while adding the { 16th { >would result in the above error message. { I had the same type of problem, for me it wasn't the CONSTRUCT statement, { but the PREPARE statement following the construct. Make sure the CHAR { variable you are sending the results of the CONSTRUCT to is the full 255 { characters, sometimes it will chop some off and you might be getting: { table_name.field_na - when you think you're getting - { table_name.field_name { If you're at the full 255 characters try: { table_name.field_name, field_name, field_name, table_name2.field_name, { field_name, field_name { instead of explicitly naming each field if that still doesn't work try { assigning aliases to the table names: { long_table_name.field_name - > lt.field { Anyway, It worked for me!!! { Scott R. Kennedy { Kennedy Systems, Inc. { Orlando, FL 32860 255 Characters? Why not define a longer variable instead of shortning the names? -- gburnore@garys.arasmith.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | '۳''''''۳''''''''''''' Gary L. Burnore | '۳''''''۳''''''''''''' Director, Programming & Development | '۳''''''۳''''''''''''' Myers Information Systems, Inc. | '۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ''' 6 9 0 6 9 ''' | Official Proof of Purchase ==========================================================================