No¶Allowed

[Raybaudi]

Hi all friends

if you wish no ¶ into your text fields !

No__Allowed_.zip

Edited March 31, 2006 by Guest

[LaRetta]

Hi Daniele,

I'm aware that using a number field will not allow the carriage return. But I guess I'm struggling with understanding why you are creating a new field (number) for every field in which you wish to prevent a carriage return - when field behavior > Go to next object using Tab & Return will do the same thing?

Can you explain the benefit of this method over a simple field-behavior modification? It is quite possible I'm missing something here ... :wink2:

[Raybaudi]

Hi LaRetta

what about a FIND by that field ?

The natural (most used) key has to be RETURN !

And You are aware of that, but how many others ?

(me only today, and I coudn't find a post about this ! ) ;)

[LaRetta]

True, it would not work in Find Mode(). Then I suppose I would suggest changing the implication of your demo file. Because not allowing carriage returns in a text field implies in BROWSE mode ... and your demo, in fact, has no Find button or mention of Find Mode(); nor does it have a Find script (and presents itself in Browse mode).

BTW, Comment demo'd this method while in Find Mode() about 6 months ago, I believe. Using a number field in Find() is sweet. But I would use globals in that case ... and not standard fields. In fact, you can't FIND text in a number field; nor can you find in globals - but you can pass the value from the global into the standard field by other methods. You can't pass a value (taken from what a User enters in a field in Find) and place it into a Find(). That wording was a bit poor ... but play with this idea a bit more and you will see what I mean.

But I like your graphic. :wink2:

[Raybaudi]

You can't pass a value (taken from what a User enters into the number field in Find) from a standard number field into a Find().

this is why I set those text fields to allow to be entered in FIND MODE...and those text fields are upper !

[LaRetta]

Okay. So now you're searching on the regular text fields and hitting enter to perform the find ... just like it always does. I guess I'm still missing something here.

The number fields aren't even needed to produce the field highlights ... a rectangle overlay will do that as well. But thanks for sharing the cool graphic!! :smile2:

[Raybaudi]

The number fields aren't even needed to produce the field highlights ...

That was only an add !

a rectangle overlay will do that as well.

Can you post an example ! ( I think no, you need a field, the same or another ) ;)

[LaRetta]

a rectangle overlay will do that as well.

Well, something more like this (attached) ... it's a bit sloppy, I didn't spend long on it ...

Only two globals for ALL fields which need to be searched. Two global NUMBERS. You only need the maximum number of globals that a User can be presented on one layout at one time. I would just refuse to create a duplicate standard number field for every one of my text fields; nor would I stack the fields. I would event-trigger fire it probably. Simply, I have never found the need to fix a problem that, to me, isn't broken. But I'm still open ... I always want to learn new ideas.

I like the thought of variables also but haven't played with them as much as I'd like. :wink2:

NoCRAllowed_.zip

[Raybaudi]

Ok

So you loose the "engraved" effect of the fields and there are some flickers with that laaarge gray rectangle.

Also you had to script the FIND.

BTW I always want to learn new ideas, too

[LaRetta]

"So you loose the "engraved" effect of the fields and there are some flickers with that laaarge gray rectangle."

True. But it takes far less resources to add a laaarge gray rectangle and two rectangles behind the fields than adding a number field for EACH field. Flicker - not necessarily. It depends upon several factors. I had used YOUR colors and it is simply more obvious. The less the difference between the colors, the less the flicker; the lighter the colors (and the background the highlight), the less the flicker - light colors flash less than dark. I also did not optimize it for flash effect, ie, synch the object stacking order by re-pasting simultaneously nor grouping/locking.

"Also you had to script the FIND."

That Find was not part of my response to you. As I quoted at the beginning, the demo was to show field highlight. I don't need those number fields at all. I would perform a standard Find. The remainder of my post was simply in response to your overall demo. If I needed to capture User-entered Find criteria, I would trigger it. But even scripting the find is better, in my mind, than all the added fields. And your post was, after all, showing a method of finding then? And NOT removing/preventing carriage returns in Browse? Because again ... a standard field would do the trick and none of this would be necessary.

But then I never allow finds on standard layouts anyway ... too much chance the User changes browse data thinking they are in find. Rather, I switch them to a dedicated find layout - in which case, all of this would be moot anyway. If I want to pass 'find request' data into my scripting, I would use a global (because that is the only way to 'capture' find data). Otherwise I would simply use the regular fields and let Users perform a NORMAL FIND then hit [ENTER] to perform it - and no carriage return in sight, none planted in the data and none before, during or after the find.

Well, I'm off. I've played too long tonight and I have work to do. :smile2:

[Conartist]

I'm really interested in understanding the highlighting feature that Laretta demonstrated. I tried dissecting the example file but I'm still missing something. Here's what I think I understand...

The background color will eventually become the highlight color.

A colored square is put on top of the entire background - this will be the visible background color.

The fields are made transparent.

When I tried reproducing this trick I was able to get the highlight to show through to the fields when they were entered, however all of the fields on the layout were highlighted not just the one I selected.

What am I missing. I know Laretta said something about putting individual squares behind the fields in the same color as the large square, but this didn't seem to have any effect. What am I missing?

I really like this simple approach to field highlighting!

[LaRetta]

In Layouts > Layout Setup, turn off 'Show Field Frames when active."

Edited April 4, 2006 by Guest