At 01:37 AM 07-02-01 +0000, you wrote:

>Hello Helen.
>
>The first time it happened, I was using a 'numeric(11,2)' field. I
>changed the precision and it did not change anything. So I changed
>it to double precision because I thought it was a precision problem.
>
>Just to be sure, I did what you told in your post. I defined a
>numeric(11,4) field. I entered 25142356.23 in the field. Look at
>the result: 2514E7.

That would be correct for such a number.

>Same with a numeric(11,2) and numeric(14,2) and
>numeric(18,4).


>Anyway, if it's what you think it is, I would have the same behaviour
>in TIBOQuery, but I don't. In TIBOQuery, it's Ok. And it's Ok with
>all these different field definitions.

What version of IB are you using? (14,4) would be the maximum precision
you could get with 64-bit (v. 6, dialect 3).
But this helps, I think. If it's working with IBOQuery and not with
IB_Query, it could be a problem in the IB_Datalink, the treatment of
variants as Int64, or the control itself. What control are you using to
display it? Are you seeing the same output in both IB_Edit and IB_Grid?

>I think the problem is of another kind.

No answers yet...but it looks as if some facts are shaking out. :))


Helen


All for Open and Open for All
InterBase Developer Initiative · http://www.interbase2000.org
_______________________________________________________