fieldname.entname to be mandatory?

Author: sven.hedqvist@gmail.com (Sven_Hedqvist)

Anoyne know if CPWR are considering making entname mandatory when addressing fieldnames? We want to get rid of our prefixes for local variables but then run into the problem of Uniface not liking a variable and a field with the same name. You get a warning if you call a variable the same name as a field, and that's OK, but what happens when the modell gets updated with a new field and you allready have the fieldname as a variable name? Well, then you have to go and change all components that have such a variable..

All this would be no problem if you were forced to end a field address with  .entname..

1 Comment

  1. Hi Sven,

    .... but we loose a lot of flexibility (especially in global or included procs) to handle fields in different entities.
    If we use includes in entity-triggers, a ".<$entname>" will give us the flexibility, but in global procs or menues ???

    I recommend a prefix for variables which must not be used for field_names (like v_ or so).

    Success, Uli


    Author: ulrich-merkel (ulrichmerkel@web.de)