Re: Layout Hell
From: LX-i (lxi0007_at_netscape.net)
Date: 07/17/04
- Next message: LX-i: "Re: Layout Hell."
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Layout Hell"
- Next in thread: Mike: "Re: Layout Hell"
- Reply: Mike: "Re: Layout Hell"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:04:20 -0500
Mike wrote:
> Normal record layouts similar to this have been in very successful use
> since Bill Gates was in diapers. You can't do packed-decimal in
> Access, you can't do redefines in Access, you can't even have group
> levels in Access, you can't define a primary key as more than one
> field in Access.
I was with you 'til the last one - you can have multiple-field PK's in
Access (I believe at least as far back as version "97")...
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~ ~ / \/ o ~ ~ ~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~ ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~ ~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Next message: LX-i: "Re: Layout Hell."
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Layout Hell"
- Next in thread: Mike: "Re: Layout Hell"
- Reply: Mike: "Re: Layout Hell"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|