This is eluding me. I'm hoping there's a simple answer. I have a layout showing two fields; "postal codes" and "locality", both in a single record. ie Postal code "0810" and locality "Alawa" appear in a record. I want to enter that postal code into a field in a related file and have FMP7 automatically lookup the locality corresponding to that postal code. Problem is... there can be different localities each with the same postal code appearing over multiple records. So, creating a lookup will only give me the first corresponding match (I think). I want to have FMP7 show a list of localities (records) which correspond to the postal code I have entered and then be able to select from that list. I'd be grateful for assistance.

You could create a portal showing the matches between your entered zip code and the postal_code-locality file. Then write a script to select the portal row and put the locality from that selection into your current table.

Likewise, you can use a Value List which displays a popup to select from. No need for script. Join postal code to postal code. Create a Value List called Locality. Select 'Use Values from Field' and select 'only related values' and specify this new relationship. Then select your Locality field.

When Users select the postal code, the popup will filter to only display corresponding Localities.

I like your solution, MoonShadow. The important point is to select "only related values."

Thank your mother for the rabbits!! Why didn't I think of that?? Thank you muchly. I shall implement said solution accordingly.

Hmm. Might I query as to why you used a phrase equivalent to 'thanks for nothing', when the rest of your post appears to convey the opposite?

Errr...you're reading it wrong. It's an Australian phrase thanking someone who provides an answer or a gift. It's actually a term expressing a great deal of gratitude. I have implemented the solution and whilst there are a couple of issues I need to sort out, I am very grateful. Fair enough?

I see. I've read and heard it is a reference to Thomas Austin bringing the plague of rabbits into Oz, which was not a good thing. So it's thought of as a sarcastic remark that 'reflects the attitude of a lot of Australians about the early English basically stuffing up the country.'

I have better things to do with my time than get into an argument about one persons interpretation of a colloquial phrase. Where I come from, if someone says they read it a particular way i.e. "they are grateful", no matter what the historical minutae may or may not be, that's generally respected for what it is and the matter is left to be. A lecture from you on the "attitude" of Australians based on a somewhat contentious thread in another forum is not only insulting, but also demonstrative of a shoulder laden with a large chip. Please be advised that I ain't playing that game and would be grateful if you let the matter rest. To the other gentlemen who replied to my original post, I sincerely thank you and am indeed grateful for your assistance. Your suggestions have worked and have made a somewhat onerous task a heck of a lot easier. Cheers.

No chip. Just curious. Didn't intend to be insulting or offensive. I'm just interested in the etymology of different phrases. Historical minutiae is fascinating.

Best Australian phrase ever: "Spit the dummy."

(Biggles, i'd say you did that a few posts ago, but i don't really know if it's insulting or not, so i won't say it ...)