On 11/06/2018 19:55, Bernie van't Hof wrote:
> Just to let you know I havn't gone away. This discussion prompted a lot 
> of rethink. Still plugging away.

Good!!

Sounds like some real nasty ones are... gestating...  ;-)

   - Mike


> On 12/5/18 5:32 am, Michael Kennedy wrote:
>> On 11/05/2018 18:17, Bernie van't Hof wrote:
>>> Most of these are selects with various tests, which are not too hard 
>>> to convert using multiple queries and UNION.
>>>
>>> There are some that change or delete and that is giving me pause for 
>>> thought. Maybe the only way is multiple queries in a TRANSACTION, but 
>>> that causes complications building the CHANGED and DELETED result 
>>> tables. Mmmmmmm.
>>
>> Well, if I'm the only one running some of these oddball constructs 
>> then maybe skip them?
>>
>>> Also a timely reminder to implement "!". I currently recognise it but 
>>> don't follow through in the join.
>>>
>>> And I bet you had fun with this one:
>>>
>>> On 11/5/18 8:02 am, Michael Kennedy wrote:
>>>>     Menu {Ask} Select Trans_01_Tmp
>>>>        Moveto [Account No]      "_ac"
>>>>        Moveto [Year End Date]   "_dt"
>>>>        Moveto [Run Batches]     "Y"
>>>>        Moveto [Business Typ]    "~ForB"  ;Fishing/BUSINESS
>>>>
>>>>     MENU {Ask} SELECT TaxPadP
>>>>        MOVETO [Account No]      "_a!,_ac"   CHECKPLUS
>>>>        MOVETO [Year End Date]   "_b!,_dt"   CHECKPLUS
>>>>        [Line No]              = "~tot_line"  ;= match on
line "37"
>>>>     DOWN                                    
;A-N-D (because of next 
>>>> _a,_b)
>>>>        MOVETO [Account No]      "_a"     ;??? Maybe ",count=0"
here 
>>>> also
>>>>        MOVETO [Year End Date]   "_b"     ;??? Maybe ",count=0"
here 
>>>> also
>>>>
>>>>        [Line No]              = "not ~tot_line,count=0"
;have a 
>>>> total of NO
>>>>                                                        
;lines, 
>>>> WITHOUT 37
>>>>     Do_It!  Qry_is_Ok("B18")   ClearAll
>>
>> Wow - that looks like many wasted hours and lost sleep  ;-)
>>
>> However, though I do vaguely recall the actual app, I've no clue now 
>> what all that "37" thing is all about, and what the query was trying 
>> to achieve. However, that app was run by a few hundred users, maybe 
>> 10-20-30 times per working day, over, perhaps 25-30 years, and is 
>> probably still running, and I'm pretty sure the query is working 
>> correctly  ;-)
>>
>> If you want me to dig out the context, and exactly what it's trying to 
>> do, let me know.
>>
>>    - Mike