Hi Dorris

Something I've just come across over the last few days is a perfectly sound piece of SQL that would not produce the expected results. In fact, it kept throwing an error. Until I changed the engineering behavior from 90 to 70 (in VFP9) and it worked.

Could that be an issue?

Terry

>I inherited an SQL statement
>
>

>SELECT LName, FName, Mi, ThID, neSigOpt, lPin, lFingerReg, ;
>  PADR(ConfirmType(neSigOpt, lPin, lFingerReg), 30) AS ConfData, isactive, lOverride ;
>FROM Ther ;
>&lcFilter ;
>INTO CURSOR SigTypeR;
>  ORDER BY isActive, neSigOpt DESC, 8, LName, FName, Mi, ThID
>

>where lcFilter = "Where (neSigOpt = 2 or neSigOpt .LessThan. 2) AND IsActive"
>
>What we're seeing is:
>
>

>Lname, Fname        neSigOpt (Not Diplayed)             neSigOpt Translation (displayed)
>AA, Abel                     3                                 PIN
>BB, Betty                    3                                 PIN
>CC, Cain                     3                                 PIN
>...                          3                                 PIN
>AA, Andy                     2                                 Fingerprint
>...
>ZZ,Zed                       2                                 Fingerprint
>AA, Aaron                    1                                 Not Authorized
>..
>XX, Xena                     1                                 Not Authorized
>AA, Annie                 (Blank)                              Not Authorized
>...
>

>I've tried manipulating the neSigOpt field with iif(empty(neSigOpt),1,neSigOpt) as neSigOpt - but it seems to make no difference.
>
>What I need is AA, Annie to follow AA, Aaron, etc
>
>Suggestions?