Get(ActiveFieldContents) problem

[comment]

Hmmm.. looks like I will have to fix that function to deal with empty repetitions. Never thought of that. Why would anyone have an empty repetition stuck in the middle? If it has any meaning, then perhaps the calc is correct in placing an empty value where the empty repetition is?

In any case, if you have a repeating field defined with say 100 max repetitions, and you only use 10 of those on average, you'll end up with a stack of CR's, just like Soren.

[Raybaudi]

You are right, as always

In any case, if you have a repeating field defined with say 100 max repetitions, and you only use 10 of those on average, you'll end up with a stack of CR's

This is another side effect that I (You ?) have to fix !

I wait for a new Middle...

[Søren Dyhr]

But Michael

The issue is here, that I can't get into my head why a calcfield is correct in a database with a wrong structure ...it's just a quick crappy remedy!! If repeaters are considered a need, should relations be introduced at once which calls out for export and re-import of data in the new structure...

--sd

[Ugo DI LUCA]

Hmm...

You can still get the content of a repeating field from a value list as you said first, even in the order (with missing values) if needed with some work.

I'm still not sure I understood what you're trying to do exactly.

[comment]

Well, at least in this case the calc field is used to correct the wrong structure (if I understand correctly), so that can't be bad. I agree with you that import would usually be more efficient, but then I don't know all the circumstances.

Actually I wrote the function for an entirely different purpose: repeating fields are fantastic calculators, but the result is stuck in the repetitions. To stretch a point, the only custom function you would ever need is MiddleRepetions(). Now you can do the "custom functions" in a repeater AND get the results in a regular field.

And yes, Ugo, you can "drain" a repeater via a value list, but it is sloooowwwww...

I see a lot more use for repeating fields than you seem to. Now that Ugo has shown us the speed method for creating records via import w/split repeating, I can even see situations where ACTUAL DATA could be kept in repeating fields, and reports created on the fly by importing (and then discarded). And more...

Finally, if someone wants to use repeating fields inapropriately, I believe that is their business. As long as it works for them, why should I get angry. It's not a moral issue. BTW, I use repeaters to store data myself in one of my own files. This data will never be searched, reported or summarized. So I do "the forbidden thing", fully aware of the price to pay if I am ever proved wrong.

[Søren Dyhr]

Now that Ugo has shown us the speed method for creating records via import w/split repeating

Well I used to do so as well, but the stuff I do at present is via IWP s