Function overview
Prototype
IsFilled (
field )
Parameters
field Input the field name you are testing.
Description
Tags:
Not IsEmpty IsEmpty
This is a really, really simple function...but I still see a lot of questions asking how to test if a field has data in it.
The not operator is easy enough to type in, but why should I have to?
Examples
Sample input
IsFilled ( TableName::FieldName )
IsFilled ( "" )
Sample output
1 (Returns a true value if FieldName has data in it)
0 (Returns a false value if FieldName is blank or has no data)
Function code
not IsEmpty ( field )
// ===================================
/*
This function is published on FileMaker Custom Functions
to check for updates and provide feedback and bug reports
please visit http://www.fmfunctions.com/fid/262
Prototype: IsFilled( field )
Function Author: Josh Ormond (http://www.fmfunctions.com/mid/166)
Last updated: 15 July 2010
Version: 1
*/
// ===================================
not IsEmpty ( field )__LITBR____LITBR__// ===================================__LITBR__/*__LITBR____LITBR__ This function is published on FileMaker Custom Functions__LITBR__ to check for updates and provide feedback and bug reports__LITBR__ please visit http://www.fmfunctions.com/fid/262__LITBR____LITBR__ Prototype: IsFilled( field )__LITBR__ Function Author: Josh Ormond (http://www.fmfunctions.com/mid/166)__LITBR__ Last updated: 15 July 2010__LITBR__ Version: 1__LITBR____LITBR__*/__LITBR__// ===================================
Login or register to comment
Create a new account with fmcustomfunctions.com or login to post a comment.
Comments
26 July 2010
Mine has curiously been very lowly rated - possibly by people not understanding the extreme utility of such a function.
19 August 2010
20 August 2010
This is not meant to be a personal attack, and I do appreciate your taking the time to post your work.
25 August 2010
I guess I look at a custom function the same way I look at the Let statement. You can set Local and Global variables from inside a calculation without using the Set Variable script step. In principle, I suppose the two ideas are at least similar. The idea being making the actual calculation simpler. For me, that has been extremely beneficial especially when using the Web Viewer to calculate totals (without using a field). It also gives you the ability to fix a calculation in one place rather than 100's. Not that there would really be anything else to add to this specific CF...but you never know. Some fresh-minded crazy may come up with something that works better than the "not" operator...and revolutionize the way we develop (I know, far fetched...but the principle is what I'm driving at). And then I would only have to change how my CF works, and my entire solution is updated.
As for other developers working on the solution... Anytime I have started work on another developers project, I have always printed (or saved as PDF) the custom functions, field definitions, and scripts so I can access them without leaving what I am working on. Studied them. And moved on with whatever adjustments I needed to make. Since I have already gotten a sense of how the previous developer orchestrated the solution, it hasn't really slowed me down at all. With a few exceptions.
But I do agree, CF's like this will probably always be rated lower. But that's ok. While it has very little utility to many developers, it does still have the potential to make many calculations easier. Especially since FileMaker is used by far more people than seasoned developers. Plus I am very keystroke oriented. If I can develop a solution more efficiently by shortening every calc I write by 3-5 keystokes, I can finish that project hours/days/weeks faster. But that is probably the Borg nano-probes talking.