Thanks, Ken. Crystal clear.
Greg
On 10-Dec-05, at 8:52 AM, Ken Ray responded:
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:06:07 -0600
From: Ken Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Filtering Columnar Data
To: Use Revolution List <use-revolution@lists.runrev.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 12/9/05 10:26 PM, "Gregory Lypny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not sure I understand, Ken. Your first statement puts searchString
in the fifth column, while the second puts it in the fourth. If I
changed mine to
filter theData with "*" & tab & searchString & tab & "*"
or
filter theData with "*" & tab & searchString & "*"
it would still find the string in the second column, but perhaps in
higher columns too because the pattern can be shifted right.
That's right. That's why to match a specific column, you need to
include
*all* the columns in your filter command. So for a 5-column set of
data, in
order to specify the second column and only the second column you'd
do:
filter theData with "*" & tab & searchString & tab & "*" & tab & \
"*" & tab & "*"
and to filter on only the fourth column of 5, it would be:
filter theData with "*" & tab & "*" & tab & "*" & tab & \
searchString & tab & "*"
The only issue is when you're matching the last column... you have
to make
sure you *don't* put a "*" after the last column, so it would be:
filter theData with "*" & tab & "*" & tab & "*" & tab & \
"*" & tab & searchString
and not
filter theData with "*" & tab & "*" & tab & "*" & tab & \
"*" & tab & searchString & "*"
But perhaps repeat for each is a better choice for you...
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
