FKey 182
Moderators: Susan Smith, admin, Gabriel
FKey 182
I'm getting occosional strange results working with an AEX grid and an AEX text box where occosionally clicking the textbox will return an FKey value of 182.
It's seems strange to me.
Does anyone know anything about FKey 182? I don't think I've ever encountered this particular FKey value before. there is nothing about it on our FKey page.
It's seems strange to me.
Does anyone know anything about FKey 182? I don't think I've ever encountered this particular FKey value before. there is nothing about it on our FKey page.
John Bowman
-
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:24 am
- Location: Southern California
Okay, so I kinda sorta just made up the terms.
What I meant was a grid that utilizes the A, E, and X attributes.
(see also http://brwiki.ads.net/index.php?title=Definitions )
and a textbox that does also (i.e.)
10 in f '10,10,C 1,AEX': quick_sample$
with A, E, and X all in use any time you arrow off of a field or click a fkey is set and control is returned to the program.
-John
What I meant was a grid that utilizes the A, E, and X attributes.
(see also http://brwiki.ads.net/index.php?title=Definitions )
and a textbox that does also (i.e.)
10 in f '10,10,C 1,AEX': quick_sample$
with A, E, and X all in use any time you arrow off of a field or click a fkey is set and control is returned to the program.
-John
John Bowman
I just tried it with 4.20d and it produced the proper FKEY values.
Right arrow produced 116 and down arrow produced 104.
Documenting erroneous results on the wiki is counterproductive. Please remove such documentation.
After this, please report such anomalies and if they don't conform to the documentation regard them as an error. For quicker resolution please provide an example.
Right arrow produced 116 and down arrow produced 104.
Documenting erroneous results on the wiki is counterproductive. Please remove such documentation.
After this, please report such anomalies and if they don't conform to the documentation regard them as an error. For quicker resolution please provide an example.
Sorry - I didn't know it was an error - I figured it was a feature I just didn't understand.
I don't really need a resolution - I just need documented behavior so I know how to write my code.
Personally I like the behavior being documented (erroneous or not) because next time I write a AEX grid and AEX textbox combination I need to remember about fkey 182. At least with the version of BR! that I'm using (4.18g).
I would perfer to note that this behavior was only with versions of BR! prior to such and such rather than pretend that the behavior never existed. Isn't that the purpose of documentation? To document the behavior, not document what we'd like the behavior to be?
I don't have time to write a stand alone test and instructions for you now, but I will in a few weeks when I'm not under so many deadlines.
-john
I don't really need a resolution - I just need documented behavior so I know how to write my code.
Personally I like the behavior being documented (erroneous or not) because next time I write a AEX grid and AEX textbox combination I need to remember about fkey 182. At least with the version of BR! that I'm using (4.18g).
I would perfer to note that this behavior was only with versions of BR! prior to such and such rather than pretend that the behavior never existed. Isn't that the purpose of documentation? To document the behavior, not document what we'd like the behavior to be?
I don't have time to write a stand alone test and instructions for you now, but I will in a few weeks when I'm not under so many deadlines.
-john
John Bowman
The purpose of the documentation is definitely NOT to document erroneous attributes of any release as though they were features, but to say that such and such is a known error.
If the product doesn't match the documentation then we should fix the product. Certainly not document some goofy attribute that's going away in the next release.
Since I tested 4.20 on this without failure, it will be necessary to provide a sample before we can fix it.
Meanwhile please remove the documentation fron the wiki that describes this result.
If the product doesn't match the documentation then we should fix the product. Certainly not document some goofy attribute that's going away in the next release.
Since I tested 4.20 on this without failure, it will be necessary to provide a sample before we can fix it.
Meanwhile please remove the documentation fron the wiki that describes this result.