In article
<15c8d4ab-509a-4e02-ac35-e494919561e2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David <davidandhope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions, Harry. Multiple or repeating fields would
> be a good workaround, but I'm still stuck on the ****tal relation****p
> question. Can I try to rephrase my question?
>
> Here's the setup: Managers --(one to many)--> Contacts --(one to
> many)--> Phone numbers. Each Contact always has at least one phone
> number (ie, the default phone number).
>
> Here's the question: How do I create a relation****p between managers
> and phone numbers so that a ****tal shows all related phone numbers
> excluding the default number for any contact with additional numbers.
> (However, the ****tal should include the default number for any contact
> without additional phone numbers.)
It's a very strange set-up you're using. About the only thing I can
suggest is perhaps setting the Contacts -> Phone Number Relation****p to
sort related records in REVERSE order (by Phone Number?) so that the
blank record is always at the bottom.
BUT ...
I can't work out why would you want a Relation****p directly from
Managers to the Contacts' Phone Numbers ... unless of course
"Managers", "Contacts" and "Phone Numbers" are just examples.
Otherwise, wouldn't you at least need the Contacts' name as well? A
phone number by itself makes no sense, so it would be better to store
the phone numbers (or at least Calculation field copies) in the
Contacts Table and display the Contact Name and Phone Number via the
normal Managers -> Contacts Relation****p and ****tal. This way you also
avoid the unneccesary blank phone number record entirely since every
related Contact must be displayed whether or not they have a phone
number.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hard****ps ;o)
|
