Author: Andrew Stirling
Posted: 2012-02-12 at 11:38:53
Thanks Gérard
I will try to remember that, the HAVING clause.
Kind regards
Andrew Stirling
01250 874580
support@calcpay.co.uk
HMRC Accredited UK payroll program
On 12/02/2012 15:08, Gérard Lochon wrote:
>> From: "Jean MAURICE"<jsm.maurice@wanadoo.fr>
>
>
>> Andrew, I don not think that a where clause can work on a calculated
>> field. So
>> the correct query is somthing like :
>>
>>
>> SELECT ;
>> IIF(EMPTY(natno) OR ninoconfirm = .f.,.t.,.F.) as choose, ;
>> natno, ;
>> ninoconfirm , ;
>> surname ;
>> FROM calcpay!employee ;
>> WHERE EMPTY(natno) OR ninoconfirm = .f.;
>> ORDER BY refn DESC ;
>> INTO CURSOR Empinfo READWRITE
>
>
> Yes. But he could use the name of the calculated field in an having clause !
>
> SELECT ;
> IIF(EMPTY(natno) OR ninoconfirm = .f.,.t.,.F.) as choose, ;
> natno, ;
> ninoconfirm , ;
> surname ;
> FROM calcpay!employee ;
> HAVING choose ;
> ORDER BY refn DESC ;
> INTO CURSOR Empinfo READWRITE
>
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4F37EB1D.2030102@calcpay.co.uk
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.