AHA!

>>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 )
>