Time for a good fpHistory story...

[Mike Schwartz-PC Support & Services]

> GCC Consulting wrote:
> 
> >>casting dummy
> > I will ruse this method for declaring record # dummy fields
> 
> Can someone share why the word "dummy" was chosen rather than "smart" or
>   "intellegent"? Epecially since variables can be just as smart as a
> field code.
> 
> Surely it just didn't happen by default, or for the lack of a better word.
> --
> Walter

	I would have preferred "disappearing" or "temporary" fields, because
they disappear from record to record.  But then fPtech came up with global
dummy fields, which didn't disappear from record to record.  Perhaps
"programmer assignable, lettered, not numbered, transient, except if you
make them global, variables" would work better than "dummy", but then the fP
docs would have to be about twice as long as they are.

	If Howie can remember back over 20 years to when he decided to call
them "dummy", this might make an interesting topic.  But, like everything
back then, I doubt that Howie had any visions of anybody asking such a
question over 20 years later. 

Mike Schwartz