>>A thought that comes to mind now is that the reaction to SET DELETED is inconsistent with the reaction to SET FILTER. No matter what filter is active, the SQL-query will ignore the filter anyway.
>
>There is a difference, however. SET DELETED is a global setting (for the entire current datasession, that is), whereas SET FILTER is only for a single table.
>
>When SELECTing from a filtered table, internally, the table is USEd AGAIN. When SELECTing with SET DELETED ON, this global setting also applies to the new instance of the table.
>
>Hilmar.
Good thinking Hilmar. And 'SELECT-SQL USEs AGAIN' offers a way to remember it all.
For me, the USE AGAIN principle was only a TECHNICAL principle that might eventually change over time if the vfp-team at MS would decide on a different strategy for retrieving data. My 'knowledge' was based on the LOGICAL concept that both settings influence the view on a table that's in use. With that logical concept in mind, and knowing that a filter is not of influence, it's natural to think that SET DELETED also has no influence.
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
