I have instances where I would like to use an alternate name for a field. My plan is to set up a calculated field that simply lists the primary field as the "calculation". Is there is a downside to doing this? Is FileMaker smart enough to recognize that it's a simple equivalence? Is there a better way?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Huh?

I'm not sure how to elaborate on this, but I'll try. I simply want to reference a field by a different name than the one it was originally given. For example, if a field was originally defined as Table::FlagField, I want to be able to reference it by an alternate name like Table::PrintIndicator, which accurately describes one current use. The original name is used in many scripts and layouts and, indeed, has its purpose. The alternate field name will simply serve to clarify particular usages of multi-purpose fields.

It will work, but it will add unnecessary (IMHO) complexity to your solution, and add processing cycles to the evaluation - which eventually will contribute to global warming.

Why not simply change the name of the field?

What you want is an Equivalence Function, which exists in Fortran but not in Filemaker. You can easily change names of fields, calculations, script names, relationships, layout names (most of the time) because Filemaker references most things by position in a list that it keeps internally. As Comment says, its unnecessary to "equivalize".

Steve

The original name is used in many scripts and layouts and, indeed, has its purpose.

At least in my application, some tables serve mutually-exclusive purposes. I was hoping for an "equate" but it sounds like I'll have to settle for the "calculated" alternative.

Thanks for your response.