CanGrow defaultable?

[GIA]

A2000. What a crime against nature that it's not set up that way! Undoubtedly, this was slipped into the design by a frustrated COBOL flunkie who specialized in reporting 1,100,000 as 100,000! "Outside of a dog, a book is probably man's best friend; and inside a dog, it's too dark to read" - G. Marx

 

[GIA]

Come on, someone must have something intelligent to say about this. If there's no remedy, no workaround, or not even any good safety suggestions, at least acknowledge that much.

Could it be that my name is scaring away replies to my legitimate posts? (Hey, it IS a gruesome name, but I like to say ... "The truth hurts" LOL )

"Outside of a dog, a book is probably man's best friend; and inside a dog, it's too dark to read" - G. Marx

 

[larryww]

I'd like to know this too.

 

[Junior1544]

what i think is scaring people away from this post (as you put it) is they don't realy understand what you want to know.. try reposting with more information then just "CanGrow defaultable?"... include more of a question.
like, is your question that is the default changable for the cangrow option in a form... or what?? Junior1544@yahoo.com
Life is change. To deny change is to deny life.

 

[larryww]

If I may jump in again: in my version of Access (2000), CanGrow is turned OFF by default. I have to remember to set it to true on each and every report ... or play Russian Roulette in guessing what are adequate field widths.

Having CanGrow false is a SERIOUS, SERIOUS, problem in Access reports. It is a deadly effective career KILLER.

So I'm wondering ... is that all there is to it? Do others live in fear like I do, or blindly ignore it! Is there a defensive tactic?