Primeri Programm Na Visual Foxpro
Well, that's what most expected.Nevertheless it even continues in Win8 being 6.2 Don't expect MS to put in values for future OSes. VFP9 was released in the end of 2006, beginning of 2007 Vista was released. The SP2 fixed some visual problems of the VFP IDE with Vista Aero. They could have listed the return values for older systems, true, but there is the wiki, it also has been around very long as is a well known resource like EE, UT, and some other sites. The newest help version now is maintained at the codeplex VFPX project, you can contribute there and also on MSDN: Click on Community Additions ADD. This is a nice wrapup of the topic: It also explains why a faulty version check in some software made in XP ages, didn't continue working on Vista, but again with Win7.
In gerneral the major core and driver system etc didn't change so much from Vista to Win8, and so they all have major version 6. That is the major technical reason for that decision. So it's about families of windows and the software running on them. It's better software keeps going, even if developers turned down maintainance already, isn't it?
You should also be aware the Visual FoxPro long ago introduced 'views', parameterized local or remote views, based on join queries, as an SQL alternative to the xbase programmed relationships.
Hi, In a database, I have 2 tables: tb1 and tb2. Tb1 has a primary index (mytag1), and a 'for' condition (for not deleted()). Tb2 also has a primary index (mytag2). If I want to establish a relationship between tb2 and tb1 in a program, using: alter table tb1 add fore key mytag2 tag mytag1 refe tb2 I receive the warning: 'mytag1 already exists, and is a PRIMARY or CANDIDATE index tag. Overwite it?' The options being 'Yes' or 'No'.
As I want to preserve the for condition, of course I have to press 'No' button. But this is a risk in a program, where the user might choose 'Yes', and spoil everything. Can anybody advice me? Thank you, Florin Cherbis Sat, 28 May 2005 23:24:27 GMT.
> In a database, I have 2 tables: tb1 and tb2. Tb1 has a > primary index (mytag1), and a 'for' condition (for not > deleted()). Tb2 also has a primary index (mytag2). > If I want to establish a relationship between tb2 and tb1 > in a program, using: > alter table tb1 add fore key mytag2 tag mytag1 refe tb2 If you're adding a new column to your table and you want an index on it why are you giving it the TAG name you are using for the existing index? Seems to me you should use the name of the new field for the TAG - something like: ALTER TABLE Tb1; ADD FOREIGN KEY MyTag2 TAG MyTag2; REFERENCES Tb2 -- Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP Sun, 29 May 2005 07:37:52 GMT. Hi, I am not adding a new field (column as the command says).
I just wanted to create the relationship between the 2 tables, that already have each a tag in their.cdx compound structural index (mytag1 for tb1 and mytag2 for tb2). I cannot change the name of tags (they already are used in a lot of places allover the app, and I have to keep the 'for not deleted()' filter for mytag1. If I'd use the sentence you proposed, I guess another (new) tag will be added to the tb1's.CDX index, designing of course the same field but without being primary and without 'for.' Filter, am I right? And I do not want this (in fact, is not the problem if I want it or not, but I have to use the existing.CDX's tag names and conditions.
I hope I was more specific this time and I made myself understood. I very lot appreciate your help, thank you. Florin Cherbis.
>Hi, >I am not adding a new field (column as the command says). >I just wanted to create the relationship between the 2 >tables, that already have each a tag in their.cdx >compound structural index (mytag1 for tb1 and mytag2 for >tb2). I cannot change the name of tags (they already are >used in a lot of places allover the app, and I have to >keep the 'for not deleted()' filter for mytag1. If I'd >use the sentence you proposed, I guess another (new) tag >will be added to the tb1's.CDX index, designing of >course the same field but without being primary and >without 'for.' Filter, am I right? And I do not want >this (in fact, is not the problem if I want it or not, >but I have to use the existing.CDX's tag names and >conditions.