Comments on: Isolate Any Record, Anywhere, Anytime and Any Context With One Script

By: David Tinoco

David Tinoco — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:30:58 +0000

@Fabrice – wouldn’t it not matter what repetition of you search in a field? I thought searching a repetition field will pull values from any repetition.

By: Richard Dyce

Richard Dyce — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:46:58 +0000

Interesting problem – tried the code and it failed to work! Problem was with the field name. Change the calc to:

set Field By Name [Get ( LayoutTableName ) & "::id"; #P("id")]

and worked as advertised. Is this a change to FileMaker 10v3 or somethign else?

By: Geoff Coffey

Geoff Coffey — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:29:22 +0000

Karstyn:

Keep your eyes peeled. Jesse has been working on just such a thing (plus a few extra fancies). Should be very cool.

Geoff

By: Karstyn McCoy

Karstyn McCoy — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:59:34 +0000

And to extrapolate a little more, you could take a list of params as name/value pairs, loop through the list with a set field by calc for each one. This would allow for multi-field finds.
To take it one step further there could be a third section to each name/value set for ‘Find’ or ‘Omit’.
To take it one step further ….

Ahh, the new found joy!

By: Alistair Lane

Alistair Lane — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:24:28 +0000

I have been using programmed indirection for some time to allow for generic routines such as the one you suggested above. This has saved an enormous amount of coding and allows sophisticated generic routines to be written *and* upgraded as the change is one place. The trouble is that the low level scripts which do the generic field setting are slow to execute when you have (as we do) large numbers of tables because of the share volume of if elseif statements to traverse. Now with Set Field By Name, those low level routines are (in most cases) no longer needed and the performance will be compiled code speed instead of script speed (huge difference of course). Field indirection is a huge feature.

By: Fabrice

Fabrice — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:53:59 +0000

even if it makes no sense for a find, a SetFieldByName generic script should also have a ‘repetition’ parameter (you never know…)

By: David Graham

David Graham — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:15:17 +0000

@Daniel: But of course. Good catch.

By: Daniel Antunes

Daniel Antunes — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:52:18 +0000

David,

That is a great point. Anytime a script is completely generalized I am a big fan, and your method certainly does allow for that. As a completely minor not though, with that scenario I would pass in the parameters “FieldName” and “Value”, just for semantic reasons. Aside from that, this exactly how the script should be written.

By: David Graham

David Graham — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:29:03 +0000

Of course, you can also just add another parameter like so: [ fieldName ; id ]

Now your script parameter would look like:

PassParameter( “fieldName” ; GetFieldName ( TO::Field ) ) &
PassParameter( “id” ; “1234″ )

Now you can isolate any field, not just your primary key fields.

- Dave