It came to pass on 11/20/96 that KAI STRANG wrote concerning 
Query Problem: ACCESS 95...
 
KS> You are absolutely right about this, but I was merely trying to give
KS> Bill a solution on the problem, because I understood he had to make
KS> do with those two tables and their respective structures. If he is
KS> able (allowed) change the structures, your solution is to be
KS> preferred by all means :-)
I'd hope he could change the design. It is pretty inefficint 
continually trying to throw code at a basic design flaw. I know that 
for 'quick and dirty' applications that his tables may seem okay, but 
the little extra work taken to implement proper relational design will 
pay big dividends...
I'm preaching to the converted...
...On a related topic...
I have a good routing that I got from Smart Access that allows you to 
use check boxes with this type of situation for the user input. It 
converts the data from the proper relational design to a flat, single 
table design for editing and back again for storing. It's a little 
slow on a minimum machine, but the folks at work love it, compared to 
the previous interface of multiple, scrolling subforms with drop down 
lists.
Cya Matt               __  _     ____            ____
                 ---+=| =\|=| ==| ===) =========| ===' =============+---
matthewj@gil.com.au   |_|\__|ew |_|\_\esolution |____,ommunications
 * RM 1.31 3332 * Don't even TRY to THINK without proper tools.
--- 
(3:640/404)
---------------