Increment_value() ?

[G Gabriel]

Putting the final touches on a UDF that increment/decrement any and all types of fields, with various increments (tics)..etc.
In a nutshell, an increment_value() on steroids.

Just stuck at what initially seemed like a philosophical question, but as I think about further, I believe it's a bug.

What comes after: "zzzzz" ?
or any number of z's?

if you use alpha's increment value(), here is what you get:

?increment_value("zzzz")
= "AAAA"

I am not saying this is right or wrong, but it sounds like a function that car thieves will lobby the Congress for. Isn't this the equivalent of resetting your car odometer to zeros after exhausting all the 9's?

That might work OK for a car odometer, but not in a table. This is in contradiction to numeric fields: if you try to increment a numeric field that reached it's limit of 9's, alpha wouldn't do it. So why does it do it for character?

Well,, OK.. I am saying it's wrong.

Anyone wants to lobby for or against car thieves? who have no character?

[Davidk]

Re: Increment_value() ?

What comes after: "zzzzz" ?
or any number of z's?

Usually breakfast... or if it's afternoon z's, then a snack.

[MikeC]

Re: Increment_value() ?

G,
I would say it should increment upwards just like numbers do---999 incremented would be 1000 right...not 000. So I would think
"zzzz" would become "zzzza"

[G Gabriel]

Re: Increment_value() ?

No.. maybe you are thinking:
From zzzz to azzzz assuming space allows, but if it does not, it should stop. Same thing as if you autincrement and reach the field's limit, it stops, it doesnot reset back to 0000 nor should it reset back to aaaa.

[Davidk]

Re: Increment_value() ?

But... if it's increment_value() on steroids then it could be the users choice:

Options:
1. Autoincrement stops at selected value
2. Autoincrement resets to azzzz
3. Autoincrement resets to zzzza

[G Gabriel]

Re: Increment_value() ?

Stopping is not a matter of choice. If you have a numeric field of say 3 digits and you reached 999, that's it. Not auto-increment nor increment_value() can do anything about it nor any increment_value() on steroids or any other juice because you are bound by the field limits.

But as it stands which I believe it to be a bug: if you have a character field of 3 character wide and you reached zzz, autoincrement will not reset it to aaa it will stop at zzz but increment_value() will reset it to aaa. that could have very serious consequences.

[aRob]

Re: Increment_value() ?

Resetting and incrementing seems more right than stopping and doing nothing. The unique values is what you want. Although it may produce a problem, you would probably have a bigger problem if it just stops.

[G Gabriel]

Re: Increment_value() ?

Not at all. You certainly don't want that to happen particularly if the incrementing is in a parent in a set and is in a linking field. You could have a disaster in your hand if it resets where you have the wrong child records linked to the wrong parent and good luck trying to figure out later which is which.

[aRob]

Re: Increment_value() ?

If it stops incrementing, your links would still be wrong. So just make the field big enough so it never rolls over. But philosophically, the incrementing should never stop, therefore it has to reset at the end. If it stops then it's not an 'increment_value' function.

[MikeC]

Re: Increment_value() ?

Am with Rob on this....it would be a design flaw to not have enough field width to accommodate the auto-increment...and the same goes for using the increment function. Just because there is not enough room for it to continue (or having to stop) is not the function's fault and to accommodate this scenario is not strictly up to the function but the developer.

And yes, I agree that it would be most likely "azzzz"

[cwenger]

Re: Increment_value() ?

I agree with G. This is more than a philosophical question. The process should stop at "zzzz" and pop a message to the user "What do you want to do?".

Look what happens when incrementing "az". It goes to "BA", then "BB", etc.. The process will continue, if allowed, forever.

The philosophical question would be what if the autoincrement value reached infinity. What's next? Infinity +1?

[G Gabriel]

Re: Increment_value() ?

If it stops incrementing, your links would still be wrong.

Sorry! wrong answer.
Alpha is smarter than you think.
Try it.
Alpha will not save the record. And then you are going to start wondering: "what the heck is going on?" And after days of pain and suffering you are going to post a question on the board: "Why is alpha refusing to save my record?" And you will get 15 different suggestions, then I will refer you back to this thread.

the incrementing should never stop, therefore it has to reset at the end. If it stops then it's not an 'increment_value' function.

Sorry again!
Even Begala can't spin this one!
How do you equate a higher value produced by increment_value(), a function designed to INCREASE the value one increment at a time, with the starting base value?

In some aspect, you are correct:
increment_value() should not stop and that is correct, if you are incrementing a variable with perhaps a googlish figure. But if you are talking about a field in a table, the field is limited on how many digits or characters it can hold.

I will give you one caveat though: chances of reaching the max file limit is much higher than reaching the maximum z's , UNLESS your starting figure is high to begin with.
By the way: when did I ever suggest or advocate smaller digits (a design flaw) that would cause such occurrence? Of course it's a design flaw, but numeric fields do not have an unlimited space either.

[Davidk]

Re: Increment_value() ?

In designing a control YOU lay out what the specifications for use are. To some degree it's up to the user (developer) to follow those rules governing the control. If you allow options for the control then the user would have to understand the implications of selecting those options.

Choose the best or most sensible rules in creating the control and then, if needed by users, build on it later.

[Mike Wilson]

Re: Increment_value() ?

I have to jump in here.
First, I disagree with the answer that the next increment to zzzz is either zzzza or azzzz. Why?

If you use the numbering increment, it is more obvious what happens:
The number of characters for the value is infinite, and since we grow our values in English at least, from left to right, there is virtually an infinite number of "0" to the left of the visualized value. the value 999 is actually an infinite nuber of 0's in front of 999. When the three place value has reached it's limit, it then becones a 4 place value with the virtual "0" in position 4 to the left incrementing to a 1 and the three original characters reverting to the sequence base character, 0. So, the 9's become 0's. Soooooooo, with that philosophy in mind, the correct answer to the next value of incrementing an additional character is an added base character to the left, and the original three reverting to base values: zzzz -> aaaaa. Just like the increment from z is aa, not az.

And I agree with Gabriel that "stopping" when there is no slot available will halt the system, and far better than erroneous, misaligned records.

[MikeC]

Re: Increment_value() ?

Yes Mike--your scenario is much better/makes much more sense.