Right now, I have a repeating field with 200 repetitions, ascending from 1 to 200. I would like to format the field so that the repetitions descend from 200 to 1. Thank you!
It’s very likely that a set of related records is a better design option than a repeating field.
But to answer your question, when you add a field to your layout, you can use the inspector’s data tab to specify which repetition to use. Thus, you can add one repetition at a time in order to reverse the order. That’s tedious but doable.
Alternatively, you could define a repeating calculation field that would reverse the order of the values. However, that only goes to stress the point: records can be found and sorted; fields cannot.
Good point! A contractor working for us used that method to display data in the correct left to right order.
Are your Repeating Fields for display and/or storage? Can you describe your need for using them and why they need to be reversed?
Sent from miPhone
Dave Morrison has shared a OneDrive file with you. To view it, click the link below.
Beverly et al,
Thank you for your quick response to my problem with the repeated field order issue. Attached is a short movie of this repeating field in action. You can see that the repetition numbers are presently being turned into a score by using the calculation, 100 - repetition number + 1. I could eliminate this calculation, if I could find a way to reverse the repetition numbers. I was not clear on the explanation of making a repeating field in a calculation field and how that would influence the functionality of the the field. Thank you all for your help.
Thank you for the movie, Dave! The numbering you seemed to have accomplished as you have the 100-Get(CalculationRepetitionNumber)+1
Although you haven't actually posted your calc to the forum. I have not downloaded your file to check that.
So, if you have the calculation working, I'm still not seeing where there's a problem.
The calculation does work. I'm just looking to eliminate as much processing time as possible. When the file is hosted, some tasks take longer than I would like. When judging, a few seconds can make a big difference.
You have been given an alternative in the first reply given above. I don't think there is another option - except, of course, replacing the repeating field with records in a related table. Unlike fields, records can be easily sorted.
As an aside, I think the calculation is trivial and I doubt it would cause a noticeable delay.
And as a further aside: 100 - x +1 = 101 - x.
Thank you for your reply. I saw the first response about using a calculation field to accomplish this, however, I don't understand it. Would you be able to walk me through it? If you don't have time, it's ok.
I am afraid we are not on the same page.
The very first response by philmodjunk suggested placing 200 individual instances of the repeating field on the layout, with each instance showing one repetition. You can then arrange these instances any way you like.
The second reply, by me, suggested a calculation field - and the calculation I had in mind was essentially the same you have =
GetRepetiton ( RepeatingField ; 201 - Get ( CalculationRepetitionNumber ) )
Sounds like we are not in the same book. I worked it out.
Retrieving data ...