Locate

[Marc]

In filtered tables we can use LOCATE FOR, for hidden records(after filtering
some records getting disappeared)then it update the FOUND=.F. but the record
is there in the table.
If we make a relationship within two tables in the child table also there
are some hidden records. But we cant use LOCATE FOR in related tables. The
record is not displayed but it shows FOUND=.T.
Is there any reason for this.

[Dan Freeman]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question.

But it sounds like you may be new to the xBase language so I'll point out
that SET FILTER should be used EXTREMELY sparingly for performance reasons,
and LOCATE isn't much better. <s>

Dan

Post by Marc
In filtered tables we can use LOCATE FOR, for hidden records(after
filtering some records getting disappeared)then it update the
FOUND=.F. but the record is there in the table.
If we make a relationship within two tables in the child table also
there are some hidden records. But we cant use LOCATE FOR in related
tables. The record is not displayed but it shows FOUND=.T.
Is there any reason for this.

[RGBean]

Marc,
Like Dan, I'm not positive what your question is, but if you have a browse
(or grid) on the related child table, the 'found' deleted record will
probably only be shown if it also in the current relation with the parent
table.

Rick

Post by Marc
In filtered tables we can use LOCATE FOR, for hidden records(after
filtering some records getting disappeared)then it update the FOUND=.F.
but the record is there in the table.
If we make a relationship within two tables in the child table also there
are some hidden records. But we cant use LOCATE FOR in related tables. The
record is not displayed but it shows FOUND=.T.
Is there any reason for this.