Re: Q: Aborting CONSTRUCT statement

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