>>>>I've got a little bit different but still associated with the above issue question. There's a user-entered field that should be unique. So, I use candidate index which is checked when user tries to save changes with tableupdate(). The bad thing is that deleted records are also checked unless I use filter for not deleted() (goodbye Rushmore :( ). The workaround that I see is to use two indices on that field (w/ and w/o filter).
>>>>
>>>>Does anybody have better solutions?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>You could use following solution:
>>>1. You have candidate index (no filter).
>>>2. When you try to save a record and trap duplicate key error, you can check >deleted() status of the existing record and, if deleted=.t., recycle it.
>>
>>Thanks, Edward. I tried that approach and here some of my thoughts:
>>
>>1. This works only with views. When I used table (ether with record or table buffering) I couldn't move record pointer to check if the record with the same field value is deleted. The error "The uniqueness of ...bla,bla,bla violated" occured when I tried to do that.
>>
>>2. What if user doesn't add a record but changes the existing one? How do I recycle the deleted record? I tried to REPLACE the unique field of the deleted record with the STR(primary key)(I use surrogate Integer keys) of that record, assuming that the field is a string and user can't put numbers in it. So the value would be unique.But it won't work with numeric fields.
>>
>>Thanks, again.
>
>Didn't you know that I don't use buffering?

I didn't know that when I wrote my message. Now I know that you don't use variables eather. Could you explain your approach to editing data in detail?. Do you always use views?

>BTW, VFP6 will have function allowing SEEKing without moving pointer. In regard >to second problem: it's not difficult to have routine finding new 'unique' key >value to shift out deleted record. BTW, the normal process could also involve >'safe deletion': when you delete a record, candidate key values get replaced by >some reserved sequence (e.g. "000001","000002", etc.).

I thought about it. The problem is you can't do it in Delete Trigger (the natural place to do it). So I'll lack flexibility using my own delete routine.
Also, as I said before it won't work with numeric fields if user can type any numeric value (even negative).However it's a rather rare case.

>Privet Sevastopolyu.
:) Spasibo. I vam zdraste.