RE: Initializing a timestamp field when adding a record

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We find this to be exactly the behavior we want for keeping track of 
time-dependent matters. It's more accurate (precise?), in my view, than 
executing a TIME opcode or gettimeofday() function, then converting to the 
right date format, then writing the record. Of course, we don't update it 
with "last used", purely for ordering various events by time.

So this is a matter of knowing how the system behaves, using this knowledge 
to whatever advantage you see in it.

I suspect that this behavior (default values for unspecified fields in 
logicals) has been around for a long time. It's use was news to me, and for 
us it is effective.

Now my question is, will an update through the logical file update the 
timestamp as well? I doubt it.

Regards

Vern

At 11:12 PM 1/13/03 -0500, you wrote:
> This explanation makes sense; unfortunately, the documentation doesn't.
>
> You don't want the system "helping" you by automatically posting values to
> fields you want to keep "empty" (like timestamp indicating a "last use").
>
> A before trigger is an excellent suggestion but my requirement is simple;
> adding another line of code to the program is the best solution (it provides
> the desired result with minimal code and no confusion).
>
> Doug, thanks...
>
> -reeve