Help with calculation?

[JMM]

I have the feeling I am missing something obvious.

I am trying to get a field that will have an assortment of letters in it, based on other fields.

Sample outputs -

None

F I P

S T

D

F T

....and so forth

My attempt -

If( Frog="Yes", "F" ,

If( Iguana="Yes", "I" ,

If( Puppy="Yes", "P" ,

If( Skunk="Yes", "S" ,

If( Tiger="Yes", "T" ,

If( Dog="Yes", "D" ,

"None"))))))

I have the feeling I am missing something obvious...anyone point me in the right direction?

[artbaseadam]

try:

>>>

Trim (

If( Frog="Yes", "F " , "") &

If( Iguana="Yes", "I " , "")

If( Puppy="Yes", "P " , "")

If( Skunk="Yes", "S" , "") &

If( Tiger="Yes", "T" , "") &

If( Dog="Yes", "D" , "") )

<<<

if none are selected the field will be blank...let us know if "none" is necessary.

[JMM]

You are WONDERFUL! This is what I love about FM (among other things) a great user base that doesn't not tell you how stupid your question is - they just help you with an answer - and always fast. Thank you again!

[mr_vodka]

Hi JMM,

Welcome to the forums. What is the purpose of what you are trying to do? Please let us know and we can possibly give you a better suggestion on how to handle it.

[Søren Dyhr]

There is something wrong here, we have 6 boolean fields, if these were defined with each their own one-item valuelist, is it a simple layout matter to draw the checkbox in a way that only the box itself appears visible, and then move the field label to the right of the box.

All the calc'field then have to deal with is this:

Trim(Frog &" "& Iguana &" "& Puppy &" "& Skunk &" "& Tiger &" "& Dog)

...provided each of the valuelists just contains a letter.

But relational speaking shouldn't it be 6 individual fields, but rather a field called "pet" or "animal" broken out in a related table. Which then could be gathered by ValueListItems( utilizing the dynamic valuelist option over the relation.

This question, is a chase gremlins kind of - because real development would never fall here as a problem, why would such a problem arise at all??

--sd

[Søren Dyhr]

a great user base that doesn't not tell you how stupid your question is - they just help you with an answer

Don't expect such shopkeeper'ish obedience form my side!!! By and large is it utterly wrong to let a achieve'oholic play any kind of bluffers game to get answers, we do usually need more to go on... what is the purpose to economize with the info availiable to give more balanced answers. Who benefits from NOT being told they're barking up the wrong tree??

--sd

[JMM]

Don't expect such shopkeeper'ish obedience form my side!!! By and large is it utterly wrong to let a achieve'oholic play any kind of bluffers game to get answers, we do usually need more to go on... what is the purpose to economize with the info availiable to give more balanced answers. Who benefits from NOT being told they're barking up the wrong tree??--sd

Soren - I agree, and I have no problem being told that I am barking up the wrong tree...that is how we all learn. What I was referring to was on other forums there would have been 15 responses about "everybody knows that" and other similar things. If I don't know - I try to find out, if I can't find it, I ask.

[JMM]

There is something wrong here, we have 6 boolean fields, if these were defined with each their own one-item valuelist, is it a simple layout matter to draw the checkbox in a way that only the box itself appears visible, and then move the field label to the right of the box.

All the calc'field then have to deal with is this:

Trim(Frog &" "& Iguana &" "& Puppy &" "& Skunk &" "& Tiger &" "& Dog)

...provided each of the valuelists just contains a letter.

But relational speaking shouldn't it be 6 individual fields, but rather a field called "pet" or "animal" broken out in a related table. Which then could be gathered by ValueListItems( utilizing the dynamic valuelist option over the relation.

This question, is a chase gremlins kind of - because real development would never fall here as a problem, why would such a problem arise at all??

--sd

I have several Y/N fields - the animals of the example.

Each field is a non-related bit of information.

I could not remember the information on all 90 active records. Since I am called upon to respond to questions regarding any one of the records multiple times a day, I needs to have a faster way than going back to the computer and looking it up. Thus the need for a "cheat sheet". I have a list of the active records already so I thought about adding this field to the list so I could see the info at a glance. For privacy reasons, I cannot put the field names as labels...so I could not put the Y/N fields on my list.

My bad - I used the animals to mimic my field names, but I did not realize that doing so might lead to additional confusion.

I don't know if there is a more elegant way to do this or not, but artbaseadam's version give me exactly the result I was looking for.

[Genx]

Don't worry about soren, he get's like this sometimes.

In this particular case, I think there was enough information to go on to at least give you an answer to your fairly straight forward question.

The reason we do usually like to have more information (and the reason i'm guessing Søren is going on his tirade) is that in the case of beginners there is sometimes something critically wrong with their actual relational structure. If we knew the exact situation, we would usually be able to provide correct them on structure issues and then provide a much simpler solution.

Just my thoughts -- and not necessarily directly related to your post -- but just FYI for future reference.

[LaRetta]

Hey yeah, Soren can get a bit nit-picky but it is usually with good reason. Those with much more experience can spot problem-areas which go unseen by newer Users/Developers. It would be neglectful behavior not to mention/question them; and obscene to give advice with insufficient information when a business's DATA depends upon it.

As in this case, yellow flares flew for me as well and, if Soren hadn't said something, I would have. As JMM acknowledged, these types of cautions are appreciated. If you saw someone walking towards a cliff while looking back over their shoulder, would you remind them there is cliff coming up? They will probably say, "Yep, saw it thanks" but it is ridiculous to keep one's tongue and watch them drop just because we didn't want to appear fussy.

LaRetta

[Genx]

Hey, I agree totally with you, I spent three hours trying to get enough info to answer a question properly the other day... sigh.

Anyway, the following lead to my post:

For privacy reasons, I cannot put the field names as labels...so I could not put the Y/N fields on my list.

Each field is a non-related bit of information.

Anyway, I'm definitely not disagreeing with anyone here. More often than not (especially in relation to beginners), the more info the better.

I was just trying to explain the reason for Soren's request for more info in the first place...

[LaRetta]

:waytogo:

[Søren Dyhr]

and the reason i'm guessing Søren is going on his tirade

Alex - Enclaved discourses, is my main objection here - perhaps I could pursuade you to read this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ebony-Tower-Contemporary-Classics/dp/0099480514/sr=8-8/qid=1170503346/ref=pd_ka_8/202-1948571-0995839?ie=UTF8&s=books

...or see if you can get it on dvd:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087190/

--sd

[Genx]

I'm lazy with things that don't directly increase my knowledge of a particular subject matter - Plus i don't have time -- Lol, given the reviews I'm not sure I could even watch the dvd for a leisure thing, can't you just give me an overview?

[Søren Dyhr]

Infatuation with abstractions as such are deeply irresponsible, LaRettas example with the cliff edge is a fine illustration, both Nirvana and Naomi Klein, have gotten extreemly exposed ...as seemingly counter branding, commercial etc. - only undergraduates really falls for such notions.

Actions are not chosen for their intrinsic merits, but for their instrumental properties, viz. their capacity to achieve other objectives.

Snipped from: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~jheath/

"Gambits", is the term used in chess if you wish?

Perhaps the reading the synopsis of Heath's book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841126543/qid=1104513460/202-5011322-2635063

...will give you a clue to what I'm hinting at?

--sd

[comment]

Link

[Søren Dyhr]

directly increase my knowledge of a particular subject matter

Who says it won't?? Are horses wearing blinkers more knowledgeable, or are they more dedicated to the task of pulling the cart?? We're back to perhaps not blind obedience, but then narrowed scope of distractions ...approaching the cliff's edge!

--sd

[Søren Dyhr]

A shame John Fowles havn't found his way into this nice laughable collection of "serious" abreviations ...thanks for the link though!

--sd

[LaRetta]

""Gambits", is the term used in chess if you wish?"

Or the ole' Statue of Liberty quarterback play, in football.

Ah, Michael, you quoteth the classics. And so well too! Now THAT'S good Shakespeare! Great link sir!

:king:

[JMM]

Hey yeah, Soren can get a bit nit-picky but it is usually with good reason. Those with much more experience can spot problem-areas which go unseen by newer Users/Developers. It would be neglectful behavior not to mention/question them; and obscene to give advice with insufficient information when a business's DATA depends upon it.

As in this case, yellow flares flew for me as well and, if Soren hadn't said something, I would have. As JMM acknowledged, these types of cautions are appreciated. If you saw someone walking towards a cliff while looking back over their shoulder, would you remind them there is cliff coming up? They will probably say, "Yep, saw it thanks" but it is ridiculous to keep one's tongue and watch them drop just because we didn't want to appear fussy.

LaRetta

These cautions are very much appreciated. Not only am I fairly green (at least compared to this group) but I am self taught. I know...well I am assuming...there are huge holes in my information.

I was hoping that I had provided enough information to get the solution...but questions about what I was trying to do, the nature of the data, etc were expected.

Again, it is good to know that you (collectively) are keeping an eye out for those cliffs for me.

[Søren Dyhr]

Each field is a non-related bit of information

Isn't a record related information, tied together ...ehm as a record? Each field in a record usually have some kind of coherence with the rest of the fields in the record.

My aim here is to get established, which fields goes to which table and why, since searching in a flat-file structure, by making a single calc'field with abreviations of the field names where a "Yes" is occuring ...hardly pass as a structured approach.

We need to get established if you, wish to search for several values in a swell swoop, as a kind of ANDSearch. If it's the case, would I suggest based on you profile to investigate this previous century old template:

http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.info-mac.org/info-mac/per/iso/iso-18.hqx

While we on newer versions are better off (well we can't use this old approach) with:

http://www.filemaker.com/help/Script-Steps72.html

...putting each succesive request in first portalrow. Since each field in a record could be a related record instead if we would wish it to be. The reason for not using Jon Rosens method is that repeaters have undergone a slight change in behaviour.

Still another approach to what it seems like, you're after is this:

http://www.kevinfrank.com/download/multi-gtrr.zip

Here again in fm5/6 format!

--sd

[Genx]

Ahahaha, I love this site comment. It's even funnier that I've read half the books and most of them get it right in a couple of lines where the author took a thousand pages lol.

[LaRetta]

Tis the ultimate example of succinct; something Comment excels at. :girlgiggle: