> The hole idea was to use the key field only
> for "is required" and always display
> the display field's name.

Reviewing the code once again I think the problem has been that I
reused a function that was setup for use on TIB_Grid (matching the
DisplayField of the lookup with the description field in the main
dataset). It seemed to make sense at the time, and produced results
consistent with the other control labels, but in retrospect it may not
be very intuitive.

What we have now is a situation where the lookupcombo AutoLabel has
been working a particular way for quite a long time. I am concerned
that if I change it to match your request that I will break other
peoples existing applications.

For example; People may have already setup FieldsDisplayLabel values
on the main dataset for the foreign key or descriptive fields. If I
alter the lookupcombo as you propose then such properties will be
ignored and existing apps will lose their labels.

I am happy to make the change required if everyone thinks it will be
ok. (Or do we make the change and see how many complain?)

Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing