Re: subfile issue

Simon Coulter schreef:

Note: I see various other comments indicating SFLNXTCHG or READC are suspect and not to be trusted. I have NEVER had a problem when using these keywords except when I first started and did not understand how they worked. It took about 15 minutes to properly understand the relationship and since then READC has always behaved as I expected. The most likely cause of your problem is something in your code (probably the READC loop itself) and not the behaviour of SFLNXTCHG or READC.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.

Simon,

I see only two comments advising not to use READC. Jack said 'I have been bit many times by missed readc's for various reasons' but did not specify whether READC or he was to blame; Booth just said 'Get rid of a lot of headaches. Forget the read'. So you're slightly exaggerating :-)

The problem with READC is that the name is wrong: it should have been READT - read touched. Because if the user enters something but then decides to blank the field or just rekeys the original value, the record will be read by READC, even if nothing actually changed. Mostly I am not interested whether a user touched a record after I last displayed it, but whether the contents of the record have changed since I filled it. If I use READC, I still have to compare the actual to the original values and if for some reason I do not want to process the touched records immediately, I have to mess with SFLNXTCHG to 'remember' that the record was touched. That makes READC problematic, even it works flawlessly as documented.

I agree strongly with Booth; a FOR-loop is much easier to understand.

Joep Beckeringh