>Guess I gave up too quick.
>
>That's a good solution.
>
>Curiously, now that I see it, it's obvious.
>
>And it also explains to me why the field name confusion, since the HAVING clause allows reference to fields in the source table (for calculations like this one ...)
>
>Thanks
>
_____
James,

You're welcome.

I know that 'construct' since I use it like in

select product ,;
      sum(realcost) ;  && no field name given
   from ... ;
   into array aa ;
   group by 1 ;
   having ( sum(realcost) > 222 )