You have these records (each row is a record):
and you want to see something like this?
In FileMaker, we call a 'cell' a "field" or a "column".
More like I have a field that I want split into three sections per record: see picture
Why is the data in one field in the first place?
Do you want the data in three different fields of the same record or in separate records in a related table? (a related table is much more flexible)
What does this data look like in other records? Is there a consistent format that can be used to identify which part of the data goes into each 'sub group'?
It would help to know a lot more about your database, the data and exactly what you want to do with this data that you want to split up.
The data is all in one field because it's all contact information but from different types of companies. In each record, it is split into three types and follows this consistent format so that you can easily identify which sub group it belongs to. It would be nice to split into three sections within one recrod to keep the table condensed. Within each subgroup - there can be autofill settings so that if I already have entered in Production Company "A", I can see all the different records under the same Production Company.
It still seems simpler to put this data into separate fields in the first place rather than have to make this special effort to separate them out after the fact.
It looks like you have 3 sets of data separated by two returns between each item. Does this mean that you want three fields with data like this?
Production Company | Agent | Misc. (vertical lines mean separate the fields)
Or is the section 1:, Section 2: and Section 3: data also to be included in the separate fields?
Or have you just shown the "header" info and the contact info is what is not shown in your example and would be located in the blank space between the text shown?
And apologies but I don't follow what you mean by "keep the table condensed" nor do I yet see any advantages to using separate fields in the same record while I do see some possible disadvantages to doing so when compared to using a related table for this info.
What you want can be done and fairly easily. It's just that there is a large number of variables to parse to figure out the best implementation that both does what you want and that also handles all the specific details of how the data is stored in this field.
As of now, the table fits perfectly on one page when printed - that's what I mean by keeping the table condensed. Adding more fields would compromise space because we print this out constantly.
I have shown the "header" info and the contact info is not shown but would be located in the blank space.
Yet it's much easier and less prone to problems due to data entry errors if you enter the data into separate fields and then use a calcualtion field to combine them for printing purposes. The calculation for combining the data would be quite simple.
Define your three separate fields, put the data into them and then use this calculation for your print layout:
List ( "Section 1: Productioncompany" ; ProductionCompany ; "Sectoin 2: Agent" ; Agent ; "Section 3: Misc." ; Misc )
This puts each "header" on it's own line and the data that goes with it on the next line. There are many other possible variations to this.
If you still decide you want to keep your data combined like this,
GetValue ( Contact ; 2 )
Will return the production Company contact.
GetValue ( Contact : 4 )
returns the agent
GetValue ( Contact ; 6 )
But if someone leaves out a return or hits it an extra time while entering the data, you won't get correct results.
How do you "GetValue"?
GetValue() is the name of the function to get the value that you wanted. Contact is the field. The # is the number of the item you want.GetValue(“London¶Paris¶Hong Kong”;2) returnsParis