Kurt Wendt wrote: > Stephen - you're probably right. When I first developed the code - and was > constantly looking at the data to make sure things matched up right - I > actually gathered up more fields than I really needed. > > Based upon looking at my code again now - I see I really only need: > PPitem, ShpTot, store > > I'm surprised that ALL the fields must now be included in the GROUP BY > specification. But, maybe this may ALSO have something to do with Matthew's > response. I'm going to look into his suggestion to see how it may apply to my > situation.
No surprise at all - VFP9 adheres to a stricter version of SQL. I've had to bite the bullet and fix some of my older, sloppier code. Although, if I'm in a rush, I just SET ENGINEBEHAVIOUR. :) _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] 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/[email protected] ** 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.
