strive4peace wrote in
:

with all due respect, a combo uses a ROW SOURCE, not a
RecordSource ...

And...what? My reply addressed some of the problems with rowsources,
but I said that the objection applies to both rowsources and
recordsources.

RecordSource is only for the data that feeds forms and reports --
and when it comes to a report, it does not matter if the
RecordSource is not updateable...

And this has exactly what to do with anything? Updatability is
something that is irrelevant when you're comparing:

MyTable

as recordsource vs.

SELECT MyTable.* FROM MyTable

Both are going to be equally updatable.

sorry if I was not clear. Once someone is proficient with Access,
they can deviate from this general guideline, of course. But --
if you are new, and base forms directly on tables (if the table is
Access, then there is no performance hit as long as the table
doesn't have jillions of records), then you can alleviate a lot of
problems.

I strongly disagree. Learning to create a basic SQL
recordsource/rowsource is so fundamental to Access that if you can't
do it, you are likely to be creating all sorts of bad problems.

I have always felt that it would be better if Access disallowed
table names/query names as recordsource/rowsource. Access could
easily have a wizard that wrote the equivalent SQL by pointing at a
table/query.

I just don't think it serves anyone's long-term interests to
recommend shortcuts that are not advisable in the long run. I
wouldn't recommend that anyone use macros just because they are
easy, precisely because they become more and more problematic the
more you use them. I see your suggestion as the same kind of
short-sighted recommendation -- it may be easy, but it's still a bad
way to do things in the long run.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/