🚀 go-pugleaf

Has anybody used the ftp-able external 'nCalendar'?  I want to use it in
a database, but strange things are happening.  I am doing the
programming on a IIsi, and everything (seems to) work fine.  When I
transfer the database to the SE that it will be used on, it crashes the
entire system on launch.  I installed it in the structure file, and got
an "address error" error message.  I tried it in a proc.ext file, and
got a "bad F-line instruction" or something similar.

I am using 4D v2.2.3 and nCalendar installer v1.0b1.  I tried calling
the number given for Nice Consultants, but it has been disconnected.  If
anyone can help fix this problem, or get me in touch with Frank Nichols,
the documented author, I would be e(x)ternally grateful.

Jason McIntosh
mcintosh@ee.umn.edu

hal@cs.cornell.edu (Hal Perkins) writes:

>I received the upgrade notice for FileMaker Pro 2.0 and am trying to
>decide if it's worth getting the new version.  It seems that the main
>advantage to version 2.0 is it runs on IBM PC-compatible boxes as well
>as macs and one can share data across mixed networks.  Since I'm only
>using FileMaker on an isolated mac, what advantage would there be in
>upgrading?

    The fact that there is no file conversion needed to work in Windown
is irrelevant to upgrading to FM Pro 2.0. If you ask me the single best
reason to upgrade is to get the new Script Editor. It's amazing. There
is also a lot more support for System 7, and there is also no support
for Quicktime. And that is just the tip of the new capabilities.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	    "Egads! These look like a women's fingerprints"
						   -- Durlock Holmes

In article <1992Sep10.154513.27951@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Hades,
hades@coos.dartmouth.edu writes:
>is irrelevant to upgrading to FM Pro 2.0. If you ask me the single best
>reason to upgrade is to get the new Script Editor. It's amazing. There
>is also a lot more support for System 7, and there is also no support

Has anyone seen the Script Editor yet? Are we talking more functional 
macros now or is this still fairly limited.

One thing I'd like to see is the ability for scripts to execute the same 
commands that buttons can drive. Also, I'd like to pass some parameters 
into scripts/commands, bypassing the user in some cases.

A primary need/use for this is a single button that, when clicked on, 
will move the cursor to a field and perform a relookup with no dialog box 
for confirmation. Currently, I have to manually select the involved 
field, perform the relookup and confirm the relookup in (xxx) records.
This 
is a pain in the xxx!

Anyway, is the new Script Editor worth looking at? How about Lookups - 
are they more flexible? Any changes to Summary or Calculation fields?

Looking forward to the new release regardless,

- John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  John T. Chapman                                     jtc1@cornell.edu
  Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
  Cornell University - College of Human Ecology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe the word you're looking for is 'Aaaaaaaaaaaaa'."
                                             - Penguin, Batman Returns
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

jtc1@cornell.edu (John T. Chapman) writes:

>Has anyone seen the Script Editor yet? Are we talking more functional 
>macros now or is this still fairly limited.

    I have both seen and worked with it. It is still not up to the level
of a full macro but it is really close. Almost all the commands are
available for use in any order.

>One thing I'd like to see is the ability for scripts to execute the same 
>commands that buttons can drive. Also, I'd like to pass some parameters 
>into scripts/commands, bypassing the user in some cases.

    Well, now they can (I'm pretty sure) and in fact you can have a
script perform a Quit now.

>A primary need/use for this is a single button that, when clicked on, 
>will move the cursor to a field and perform a relookup with no dialog box 
>for confirmation. Currently, I have to manually select the involved 
>field, perform the relookup and confirm the relookup in (xxx) records.
>This is a pain in the xxx!

    I have no idea if this is possible to do with a script or not, I
never tried.

>Anyway, is the new Script Editor worth looking at? How about Lookups - 
>are they more flexible? Any changes to Summary or Calculation fields?

    I don't remember any changes to Lookups but I did notice a cosmetic
change in the Calculation dialog. Now when you scroll through the
function list, you get to see the what the argumes are for all the
functions in stead of parenthesis with commas.


--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	    "Egads! These look like a women's fingerprints"
						   -- Durlock Holmes