aka the Pilot

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am the guy who has no real idea but a reputation for halfway logical thinking (undeserved, I am sure) at my office, so I got the job of creating our first database. You've helped me get the last problems solved. Thank you.

Thanks ever so much comment, it works like a charm. I even understand what it's doing, though I never would have thought of it on my own. Now I have another problem, which didn't occur (to me) until now becasue I stupidly only tested this with prices of less than 1000. I need the prices with separators, ie 1000 should read 1.000, the separating point is not being transferred from the number field when I substitute. I did find something by searching which looks like it would be in the direction I need, but I am not sure how to apply it in my situation. Let ( [ // USER DEFINED: input = numberfield ; precision = 2 ; currency = "$" ; separator = "," ; decPoint = "." ; // DO NOT MODIFY FROM THIS POINT ON inputRound = Round ( input ; precision ) ; Amt = Abs (inputRound ) ; Dollars = Int ( Amt ) ] ; // PREFIX Case ( inputRound < 0 ; "-" ) & currency & // BILLIONS Choose ( Dollars < 10 ^ 9 ; Right ( Div ( Dollars ; 10 ^ 9 ) ; 3 ) & separator ) & // MILLIONS Choose ( Dollars < 10 ^ 6 ; Right ( Div ( Dollars ; 10 ^ 6 ) ; 3 ) & separator ) & // THOUSANDS Choose ( Dollars < 10 ^ 3 ; Right ( Div ( Dollars ; 10 ^ 3 ) ; 3 ) & separator ) & // UNITS Right ( Dollars ; 3 ) & // FRACTION Choose ( precision < 1 ; decPoint & Right ( 10 ^ precision & Amt * ( 10 ^ precision ) ; precision ) ) ) Please forgive my stupidity and help me once again! :)

I am very much a novice at this, so bear with me. I am using search and replace in a script to copy a sum (from a number field that is set to round off at the second decimal) in to a text field, replacing a part of the text there. My problem is that when the number ends with a zero (ie 123.40) the zero is missing in the text (ie 123.4). These are prices, so it's confusing for users without the second decimal; an unacceptable situation. I have the feeling there must be a very simple solution for this, but I can't find/think of it. Help!

sbg2, yes. Thanks for setting me on the right track, should have figured it out myself... It's not quite as simple as you're saying, because it has to be user freindly for a bunch of graphic artists who don't want to think about going to a separate table to create a new company and then back to the contacts etc., etc., but you got me going in the direction I needed. Ted S, thanks for your explanation of significant numbers and their pitfalls. The numbers are significant, but in a way that will never change. Each has a letter code at the start to indicate client-number, job-number, ID-number etc., but the letter codes are universal, not specific to any other criterion.

I'm not sure what you mean by significant numbering... which is a big part of the reason why the rest of your statement remains a bit of a mystery to me as well... Maybe I should elaborate. The ID numbers are being used in concert with user accounts to create relations allowing for automatically adressed and signed form faxes, letters etc., which have to be individually personalised for each contact. The company serials would be used in relation to project-datasets and especially billing, which is why I need a single serial for each company to keep confusion in the accounting area to a minimum.

I'm working on a database where a single company might have several contacts. Each contact has a serial, generated automatically (ID-10000 +1 etc.), and I need each company to have a single serial. In other words, the company serial can't be generated in the usual simple automated manner known to me, because then I get a new company serial for each of the contacts from a single company. Any help would be appreciated. I'm a graphic artist being misused for this, I'm not the programming/math type, though I can think logically in a pinch , so keep it simple if you can. Also I'm using the German version, so bear with me if my terminology isn't quite correct.