Jump to content

Brian Panhuyzen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Brian Panhuyzen

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Published author of literary and speculative fiction.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
  • FM Application

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
  • OS Version
    10.12.6 – still need to work in FM11!

FileMaker Partner

  • Certification
  1. Thanks – this is not clear in the documentation. One would expect that as pulling the Modified Date yields a timestamp that the search would also work by timestamp. There are actually quite a few shortcomings in both the Developer's Guide (where for example it indicates that the property "Phone" is "Phones" – see attached) and the Functions Guide I would hope that PC will work to remedy.
  2. When I pull Modified Date from an AB record, it shows as a timestamp, but when I search (e.g., to find records that have changed since the last sync, even if that sync was today), the records yielded indicate that the system is only using midnight of the comparison date, not the full timestamp. Is this correct? And if so, how do I do fine searching for the right records, without having to first yield a found set and then filter them one-by-one? Thanks!
  3. I'll accept that you did not intend your message as an insult, but then it's matter of failing to properly communicate your intentions. Succinctness is all very fine, but not at the expense of clarity. I recommend better care when replying (especially to us sensitive novices). Messages that don't provide information, request more data, or offer a solution (or gratitude for a solution) should be avoided, as they don't contribute to the topic. (And by that criteria, this message is disqualified.) We've flogged this enough; I'm ready to move on to helping or being helped with FileM
  4. I never claimed to read efen's mind; I claimed that his response was an insult. That was my interpretation. Also, the OP was insulted, ergo, it was an insult. If efen's intentions were otherwise, the content of his message failed to properly communicate those intentions. By the way, "onerous" means "involving an amount of effort and difficulty that is oppressively burdensome"; I can't see any way the adjective could be correctly applied to intention. Did you mean perhaps "dismissive" or "antipathetic"? Thanks to everyone who did provide constructive responses to Gary's query and my o
  5. Hi Lee, I appreciate your response, and do understand that repeating fields are to be employed with caution. However, I do know firsthand of Mr. Brusanowksi's work and let me assure you he is anything but a beginner...the skill level on his profile shows Expert level, and there's no reason to dispute that claim. There's just nothing useful in efen's reply. It does not help anyone...it doesn't even convey the warning that we should be careful using repeating fields. It's an insult, pure and simple, a personal attack. And I believe that if these kinds of comments are not going to be po
  6. Oh, I didn't realize that Mr. Brusanowski asked, "would someone please waste our time while evading answering a legitimate question by quoting some useless response that contributes not at all to the spirit of this forum." Thanks so much efen and BruceR. Why don't we just revise BruceR's quote to say, "If you have any FileMaker questions you shouldn't be using it." That'd be a very productive philosophy here, don't you think?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.