Re: Q: Aborting CONSTRUCT statement

From Gary L. Burnore: * * 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? Yeah, ours is 2000 Chars. Robert Minter |Data Systems Support| \\\\\\_/// Programmer, Software Development | Orange, CA | ( _ _ ) rob@dssmktg.com | Tel: 714.771.0454 | (| ^ |) De Colores - Emmaus OC-13 | Fax: 714.771.3028 | \\`-'/ #include <disclaimer.h> SURF'S UP \\_/