Skip to main content

Solution for Normalizing Filters()

I recently posted an article about how the FILTER() command doesn't always return back what you want it to.

Well, Sergey Berezniker set me straight - that's why there's a function called NORMALIZE.

I had never heard of this function before although it's been in FoxPro for quite a while (even back in FPW 2.6).

From the help file: NORMALIZE( ) returns a character string from the character expression cExpression with the following changes:
The character expression is converted to uppercase. However, embedded strings are not changed. An example of an embedded string is "Hello" in the character expression "LEFT('Hello',1)".
Any abbreviated Visual FoxPro keywords in the character expression are expanded to their full length.
Any -> operators separating aliases from field names are converted to periods.
The syntax of any Visual FoxPro commands or functions within the character expression is checked, although the expression is not evaluated. If the syntax is incorrect, Visual FoxPro generates a syntax error. NORMALIZE( ) does not check for the existence of any fields, tables, memory variables, user-defined functions, or other references in the character expression.

WHat this means is that if you put in something like:
SET FILTER TO (company_name!="Alfred" OR region<>"NC") AND country = "United States"

You can do
a ? NORMALIZE([(company_name!="Alfred" OR region<>"NC") AND country = "United States"])

and it will return
(COMPANY_NAME#"Alfred".OR.REGION#"NC").AND.COUNTRY="United States"

What a life saver! Thanks Sergey for bringing it to my attention.

Andrew MacNeill - AKSEL Solutions: Beware of how the FILTER() works

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

I’m Supposed to Know

https://programmingzen.com/im-supposed-to-know/ Great post for developers who are struggling with unrealistic expectations of what they should know and what they shouldn't. Thirty-forty years ago, it was possible to know a lot about a certain environment - that environment was MS-DOS (for non Mac/UNIX systems). . There was pretty much only a handful of ways to get things going. Enter networking. That added a new wrinkle to how systems worked. Networks back then were finicky. One of my first jobs was working on a 3COM + LAN and it then migrated to LAN Manager. Enter Windows or the graphical user interface. The best depiction of the complexity Windows (OS/2, Windows NT, etc) introduced that I recall was by Charles Petzold (if memory serves) at a local user group meeting. He invited a bunch of people on the stage and then acted as the Windows "Colonel", a nice play on kernel. Each person had a role but to complete their job they always had to pass things back to h...
Post a Comment
Read more