I don't know because if there is a deleted record, I can't cal the record number. My method is the (db_file_length-header_length)/One_record_length.
Satish Avadhanam
Ranch Hand
Joined: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 697
posted
0
Hi long, it would be easy if you can explain the problem situation in more detail. I could not understand what you asked. Sorry.
Nicholas Cheung
Ranch Hand
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 4982
posted
0
I think you want to do this, rite? Originally:
I think you want the display to be this:
You can still get the record number, but that record is being mark as deleted. One thing you can do is (what I have done) you do NOT shift the record number. I keep the original display, but I do not allow the deleted record to be displayed. In addition, I hide the record number column, so that the user feel observationally equivalent between the 2 displays. Since I think the user dont care whether they know the record number, as they need to highlight the record to have a booking, and thus, I simply hide it, rather than displaying it out, and *reconstruct* the numbering. Nick.
I agree I dont think that all active record numbers should have do be sequential, in fact if you didn't count the delected records it would make random access impossible IMHO.