Replace statment not working

[cameron40]

What i am trying to do is go through all untype coloum and replace all occurances of 'c' with 'x' can anyone see where my code is wrong because it will not work thanx

replace untype with 'x' where untype = 'c'

 

[craigsboyd]

Replace untype with 'x' for untype = 'c'

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com

 

[EzLogic]

Just like craig said, except, you must do "ALL"

Replace untype with 'x' for untype = 'c' && will replace the current record. or the first matching record.

replace ALL untype with 'x' for untype = 'c' will do all of them as you wanted it to be.

Ali Koumaiha
Wireless Toyz
Farmington Hills, Michigan

 

[craigsboyd]

TeknoSDS,

You may want to check your logic there. As I understand it the statement I posted will replace all records that meet the criteria, the "ALL" clause is implicit.

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com

 

[baltman]

Craig is right. FOR has a scope of ALL. Catches me all the time when I use a SCAN and wonder why nothing after my 1st replace statement seems to get executed.

Brian

 

[ChrisRChamberlain]

cameron40

A worthwhile habit to adopt is adding

[COLOR=blue]IN TABLENAME[/color]

to such statements.

It means you do not have select a specific table before deleting, replacing etc.

You may also run into problems if you don't prefix the field name with the table name should you have any variables with the same name.

So your code might look like

[COLOR=blue]REPL TABLENAME.untype with 'x' for TABLENAME.untype = 'c' IN TABLENAME[/color]

FAQ184-2483 - answering getting answered.​

Chris
PDFcommander[sup]tm[/sup].com
PDFcommander[sup]tm[/sup].co.uk

 

[ChrisRChamberlain]

cameron40

Another gotcha is that your REPL statement with the FOR clause will put the table into an EOF() state regardless of where the matching records were found, so, depending on circumstances, you may need to note the original record and return to it after the REPL statement.

FAQ184-2483 - answering getting answered.​

Chris
PDFcommander[sup]tm[/sup].com
PDFcommander[sup]tm[/sup].co.uk

 

[EzLogic]

Good god, i have always used it. lol

thanks for the tip Craig.

learning something new everyday *wink*

Ali Koumaiha
Wireless Toyz
Farmington Hills, Michigan

 

[craigsboyd]

learning something new everyday *wink*

same here! I don't necessarily think that including clauses that would otherwise be implicit is a bad thing. In fact as Chris has pointed out it can keep you out of hot water sometimes and lead to more readable code. I almost always include the table name and hardly ever use the abbreviation of commands just for this reason. And, I do happen to use SCAN ALL when I am scanning even though it's not necesssary. So, nothing at all wrong with including the ALL as you've always done, I just didn't want to have the impression left that the ALL was necessary in order to ensure the proper scope.

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com