Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 32236
interpreted = N
texte = >It appears that the construct [max] is evil. As soon as it appears in >any page, bad things happen, except within [FormVariables]. I added >the following to the top of my page:I think I see it now. Looks like the new aggregate functions in searches interfere with the existing max. I may have to change the new [min field], [max field], [avg field], and [sum field] to other names.Grant Hulbert, Director of Engineering ********************************** Smith Micro, Internet Solutions Div | eCommerce (WebCatalog) 16855 West Bernardo Drive, #380 | ------------------------- San Diego, CA 92127 | Software & Site Development Main Line: (858) 675-1106 | http://www.smithmicro.com Fax: (858) 675-0372 **********************************############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (John Peacock 2000)
  2. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (GHulbert@smithmicro.com 2000)
  3. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (John Peacock 2000)
  4. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (GHulbert@smithmicro.com 2000)
  5. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (John Peacock 2000)
  6. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (GHulbert@smithmicro.com 2000)
  7. Re: Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (John Peacock 2000)
  8. Linux Beta4 problems with multirecord returns (John Peacock 2000)
>It appears that the construct [max] is evil. As soon as it appears in >any page, bad things happen, except within [formvariables]. I added >the following to the top of my page:I think I see it now. Looks like the new aggregate functions in searches interfere with the existing max. I may have to change the new [min field], [max field], [avg field], and [sum field] to other names.Grant Hulbert, Director of Engineering ********************************** Smith Micro, Internet Solutions Div | eCommerce (WebCatalog) 16855 West Bernardo Drive, #380 | ------------------------- San Diego, CA 92127 | Software & Site Development Main Line: (858) 675-1106 | http://www.smithmicro.com Fax: (858) 675-0372 **********************************############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to GHulbert@smithmicro.com

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

&fieldsdir=ra truely random?? (2000) WebStar 4.2 issues (2000) date formatting for CC card expiration date check (1998) Fun with dates (1997) How to search for fields with 10 or more characters? (2004) no global [username] or [password] displayed ... (1997) process SSI (1998) Append File help needed (2000) A question for the experts (2000) Multiple Ad databases? (1997) Add to a field (1998) Include a big block of text (1997) Filemaker Pro and [convertchars] (2000) Notice to SMSI (2004) Date search - yes or no (1997) NT vs Mac (1997) Help! WebCat2 bug (1997) WebDNA Threaded Discussions? (2004) Accepting credit cards (1997) Locking up with WebCatalog... (1997)