Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-22 Thread Stephen Russell
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: > Steve, an Integer field stores values from -2,xxx,yyy,zzz to > 2,xxx,yyy,zzz so how would leaving it as a 8 byte char() work better? > That's one digit less, if I

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-22 Thread MB Software Solutions General Account
Stephen Russell wrote: Steve, an Integer field stores values from -2,xxx,yyy,zzz to 2,xxx,yyy,zzz so how would leaving it as a 8 byte char() work better? That's one digit less, if I understand you correctly. ??? Are you trying to multi-thread again? >>> I thought that I

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-22 Thread Stephen Russell
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: You could keep it as char() and have him do the conversion on his side. You indexs should work for finding. He/she can do the conversion from their side as nee

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-21 Thread Paul Hill
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: You could keep it as char() and have him do the conversion on his side. You indexs should work for finding. He/she can do the conversion from their side as nee

RE: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-21 Thread John Harvey
New data type - packed char JH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions General Account Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:51 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: Integer 64 bit field Stephen Russell wrote: >>> You coul

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-21 Thread MB Software Solutions General Account
Stephen Russell wrote: >>> You could keep it as char() and have him do the conversion on his >>> side. You indexs should work for finding. He/she can do the >>> conversion from their side as needed. >>> >>> >>> >> Steve, an Integer field stores values from -2,xxx,yyy,zzz to >> 2,xxx,yyy,zzz so ho

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-21 Thread Stephen Russell
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: >>> Not sure if he'll be up for splitting them up. That sounds like a >>> recipe for disaster (or Vistaster...LOL), because if he wanted a >>> character field, he would have

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-21 Thread MB Software Solutions General Account
Stephen Russell wrote: >> Not sure if he'll be up for splitting them up. That sounds like a >> recipe for disaster (or Vistaster...LOL), because if he wanted a >> character field, he would have asked for it. I don't want to split up a >> numeric field. Sure, it can be done, but that sounds like

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-19 Thread Stephen Russell
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: tell them to convert it on their side. Convert.ToInt64() >>> No, he's going to want to store something in those VFP9 free tables, so >>

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-18 Thread Steve Ellenoff
You may not have a choice other than to split them into 2 Integer fields on his end, since I don't think there's an easy way to get VFP to handle getting a 64-bit integer. I hope I'm wrong, and would love someone to correct me. While you may possibly be able to store it in a 8 byte field, it's

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-18 Thread MB Software Solutions General Account
Stephen Russell wrote: >>> tell them to convert it on their side. >>> >>> Convert.ToInt64() >>> >>> >>> >>> >> No, he's going to want to store something in those VFP9 free tables, so >> that's not gonna be the fix. > > > I have friendlyids

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-18 Thread Stephen Russell
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> A 3rd party who's writing a DotNet product that will interact with

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-18 Thread MB Software Solutions General Account
Stephen Russell wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A 3rd party who's writing a DotNet product that will interact with our >> VFP9 free table app is request us to make a field that is an 8 byte (64 >> bit) integer. Apparen

Re: Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-18 Thread Stephen Russell
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A 3rd party who's writing a DotNet product that will interact with our > VFP9 free table app is request us to make a field that is an 8 byte (64 > bit) integer. Apparently the -2bil to 2bil that Int

Integer 64 bit field

2008-07-17 Thread MB Software Solutions General Account
A 3rd party who's writing a DotNet product that will interact with our VFP9 free table app is request us to make a field that is an 8 byte (64 bit) integer. Apparently the -2bil to 2bil that Integer represents is not enough for him. My colleague says that it looks as though Currency type woul