![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I've used Rick Fisher's Find & Replace Add-In for many years. Some of you may be familiar with it. Last year, I asked Rick how to limit the searches performed by his tool to local tables only. He replied saying to type this in the table spec field in his application's main window: =|(%tbl%.attributes and 1073741824) = 0| It works perfectly. Has saved me immense amounts of time by restricting attached tables from the scope of the search. I'm wondering if anyone, looking at the criteria Rick supplied me with, can tell me how it works? That is, is there some underlying Access principal at work here in the specification? What is the meaning, for instance, of the 1073741824 value? |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:56:33 -0500, MLH <CRCI (AT) NorthState (DOT) net> wrote: Didn't you see that 1073741824 is &H40000000? So this is testing the Attributes property of the Tabledef for the second-highest bit to be set. -Tom. I've used Rick Fisher's Find & Replace Add-In for many years. Some of you may be familiar with it. Last year, I asked Rick how to limit the searches performed by his tool to local tables only. He replied saying to type this in the table spec field in his application's main window: =|(%tbl%.attributes and 1073741824) = 0| It works perfectly. Has saved me immense amounts of time by restricting attached tables from the scope of the search. I'm wondering if anyone, looking at the criteria Rick supplied me with, can tell me how it works? That is, is there some underlying Access principal at work here in the specification? What is the meaning, for instance, of the 1073741824 value? |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nope. Missed it altogether. Sounds like you're on to something. I would guess that second-highest bit to be set is likely the one that, if set, indicates the table is attached. Thanks, Tom. ? 1073741824 = &H40000000 True xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:39:34 -0700, Tom van Stiphout no.spam.tom7744 (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:56:33 -0500, MLH <CRCI (AT) NorthState (DOT) net> wrote: Didn't you see that 1073741824 is &H40000000? So this is testing the Attributes property of the Tabledef for the second-highest bit to be set. -Tom. I've used Rick Fisher's Find & Replace Add-In for many years. Some of you may be familiar with it. Last year, I asked Rick how to limit the searches performed by his tool to local tables only. He replied saying to type this in the table spec field in his application's main window: =|(%tbl%.attributes and 1073741824) = 0| It works perfectly. Has saved me immense amounts of time by restricting attached tables from the scope of the search. I'm wondering if anyone, looking at the criteria Rick supplied me with, can tell me how it works? That is, is there some underlying Access principal at work here in the specification? What is the meaning, for instance, of the 1073741824 value? |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:01:08 -0500, MLH <CRCI (AT) NorthState (DOT) net> wrote: In the immediate window: ?hex$(dbAttachedTable) 40000000 -Tom. Nope. Missed it altogether. Sounds like you're on to something. I would guess that second-highest bit to be set is likely the one that, if set, indicates the table is attached. Thanks, Tom. ? 1073741824 = &H40000000 True xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:39:34 -0700, Tom van Stiphout no.spam.tom7744 (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:56:33 -0500, MLH <CRCI (AT) NorthState (DOT) net> wrote: Didn't you see that 1073741824 is &H40000000? So this is testing the Attributes property of the Tabledef for the second-highest bit to be set. -Tom. I've used Rick Fisher's Find & Replace Add-In for many years. Some of you may be familiar with it. Last year, I asked Rick how to limit the searches performed by his tool to local tables only. He replied saying to type this in the table spec field in his application's main window: =|(%tbl%.attributes and 1073741824) = 0| It works perfectly. Has saved me immense amounts of time by restricting attached tables from the scope of the search. I'm wondering if anyone, looking at the criteria Rick supplied me with, can tell me how it works? That is, is there some underlying Access principal at work here in the specification? What is the meaning, for instance, of the 1073741824 value? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |