translating number into number of times displayed

[stann]

I have a field which contains a number."Number"

I have a global in which I would like to translate that number into the number of times I display the letter x.

So if the number field contains "7"

I would like the global field to calculate this "xxxxxxx"

So if the number field contains "13"

I would like the global field to calculate this "xxxxxxxxxxxxx"

Thanks

Dave

[QuinTech]

Hi, Dave. Try creating a second global field called Counter and then using this script:

If [ "Number <= 0" ]

[-Queue-]

Well, it would be a calculation field, since a global calculation won't auto-update the same way. Assuming you can have up to 100 in the number field, your calculation field would be Left( number, "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" ). Change the comma to a semi-colon for version 7.

If using Developer, you could also create a Custom Function that would do it without hard-coding 100 or more xes.

[-Queue-]

Jerry's script is more dynamic than my calculation. However, it will require users to click a button to update the field after 'number' is changed.

[CobaltSky]

Hello Stann,

Whether by script or by calculation, I suggest that you use the formula:

Substitute(Right(10^Number, Number), "0", "x")

- which will produce the desired number of 'x' characters for 'Number' values in the range from 0 to 214. If you need a range that goes beyond 214, a slightly more complex formula will be needed - but nothing that requires you to type a hundred Xs...

[-Queue-]

Nice. I've never seen that one before. I thought it could be done, but never had need for it. Thanks, Ray.

[CobaltSky]

Of course that is for FileMaker v6.

For v7, I'd suggest using the following Custom Function:

Extrapolate ( String; Number )

with the function definition being:

Case(

Number > 0;

String & Extrapolate ( String; Number - 1 )

)

...which will be good for value ranges of 'Number' from 0 to 9,999.

[QuinTech]

I knew when i was writing my solution that there would be a better one... i didn't think that there would be TWO.

J