Then you might want to do row buffering (and be sure SET MULTILOCKS ON) and
use OLDVAL() and CURVAL().  Yet another messy situation you could get into.

Fred


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:

> At 12:33 2013-11-07, Fred Taylor <fbtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The values on the current row are referenced directly via the fields in
>> the
>> table/cursor.  Don't use the objects in the columns to try and get the
>> values.
>>
>
>      That does not work.  That gives me the current row value in the
> cursor.  I do not want that.  I want the control values in the grid,
> because I want to check the current row before it gets used to update the
> cursor.
>
>      If someone is updating a row and enters invalid data, I want to catch
> that.  Note that the issue is *specifically* for data requiring the
> checking of more than one control to validate.  (If it is just an error in
> one control's data, I can catch that in the control's .LostFocus().)
>
>      I am getting the feeling that I am going to have kludge this by
> turning control validation off, quickly setting focus to each control in
> the current row, then turning validation back on.  And all this in a
> beforerowcolchange.  This looks as if it could be horribly ugly code.
>  Surely there is a simpler way?  Please!
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cajcbksqepmnnpay+dghab283wlccsale9hkc-mgv55hcqw_...@mail.gmail.com
** 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.

Reply via email to