Creating Repeating Calculations

[opolo]

I need to create a calculation with several repetitions. It would appear that this is possible, since there is an option to make a calculation repeating. However, I can't seem to find information on the function and/or notation that will define the parameters of the repetitions within the calculation itself.

Specifically, I want to split up a single field with 1-20 alpha-numeric "words" into a calculation where each "word" sits in its own repetition. I have no problem isolating each "word" using the MiddleWords function, but what notation do I use that tells it that each of these "words" needs its own repetition?

[David Jondreau]

Let([

field = Extend(table::wordField);

thisRep = Get(CalculationRepetitionNumber);

result = MiddleWords(field; thisRep;1)

];

result

)

[Lee Smith]

Repeating Fields are usually considered obsolete for keeping data in them, most of the time you would be creating related records.

I'm curious as to what is the intended end result for separating these into repeaters?

Lee

[opolo]

Thank you for the suggestion, I shall try it.

As for the reason....it's a retroactive work around....hence the craziness.

It's a new relational element for an inventory/cataloguing/research DB for a gallery. The client (who is about as computer illiterate as you can get) needs to have access to .pdf research files related to her inventory. She has real trouble using searchlight () and needs a "one click" solution that will bring up a related research file while she's in the inventory DB. The problem is that for more common artifacts, the pdf's correspond to multiple inventory #'s (the pdf's are named by associated inventory #'s). My idea was to create a new DB and import the reference image/path to the pdf's. Since the DB's are linked by inventory #, this works just fine for those pdf's with a single inv# in their names. The ones with multiple #'s are a problem....It's easy enough to split out the individual inv#'s, but I need them in a repeating field in order for the DB relation to work.

I'm always open to new ideas...