The short answer is: YES!
The condescending answer is: RTFM!
The helpful answer is: I layout mode, grab and drag the "add field tool" from the toolbar, down to the layout and drop it there.
Best regards Magnus Fransson.
copy paste is my fav
I don't think I'm explaining myself correctly. Bare with me.
If I have two separate layouts. On one layout I have 5 Fields. And on the other layout I have 5 fields as well. One of the fields is Employee_ID for both. On the first layout is all of the records stored with employees information. I would like to enter in the employee ID on the second layout and have the 4 other fields populate with the correlating data from the 4 other fields.
a typical case of find mode, on the 1st layout.
otherwise create a self-relationship based upon a global (gEmployeeID) which is the field you modify. The other 4 fields are the same fields from Layout 1, but seen through the relationship.
copy paste is my fav
But then again, you are certified …
If I have two separate layouts. On one layout I have 5 Fields. And on the other layout I have 5 fields as well. One of the fields is Employee_ID for both.
it is much more helpful if you describe what you're trying to do in concrete terms … e.g. “I have an Invoice layout and am attempting to display data from the Customer table“ – replace Invoice and Customer with the entities/things you're trying to manage in your solution.
An abstract description just requires too much mental energy that would be better used to solve the actual problem.
Anyway: at a guess you want a relationship (by employeeID) between the two table occurrences your layouts are based on, then display fields from the one table on the other layout.
EDIT: Part in bold was explained by Mike in his subsequent post.
I think the problem here is the confusion of a layout (which is a device for displaying data) with a table (which is where data are stored). In between them is a table occurrence (which is the little box on the Relationships Graph that connects the table not only to other tables, or occurrences of tables, but to layouts as well).
So it looks like this:
Layout (which sits on top of)
Table Occurrence (which is a reference to)
Fields, on the other hand, are two things: They are objects that store data in tables (see: File > Manage > Database), and they are also objects on layouts that display the data that are stored in the corresponding field in the table. (The fact that we use the same name for both objects often contributes to the confusion).
So, erolst's snarkiness actually has a purpose: If you want to display the data from a field in a table, then you would drag a field object onto a layout that corresponds to that field in the desired table occurrence. This will all be contingent upon which table occurrence the layout "sits on" (i.e., is based on) in the Relationships Graph. If they are the same, then it will be fully automatic. If, OTOH, they correspond to different table occurrences, then you'll need a relationship between them and you'll need to display the data from the related TO on the current layout.
So, erolst's snarkiness actually has a purpose:
No, it didn't, really … I just wanted to take the P. (as the Brits say) to vent some frustration; probably need more adult supervision.
(Nothing personal, Chris.)
The purposeful stuff was the preceding one: “Know what you want, so you can explain it to us.”
The recommendation/suggestion/advice to explain your setup / requirements / intended goals in concrete terms should be part of a sticky on every technical forum; lacking that, this link should be bookmarked:
Then again, who bothers with forum stickies or longish articles …