Why am I getting a syntax error?

[Dan Coutu]

Kenneth Brody wrote:
> Quoting Dan Coutu (Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:23:52 -0500):
> [...]
>   
>> So I store the name of the filePro file in a declared variable called
>> FileName, simple enough. It seemed reasonable to want to have a gosub
>> that did a lookup of an existing record like this:
>>
>> lookup fil=(Filename) r=(RecordNo) -ex
>>     
>
> That's perfectly reasonable.
>
>   
>> (Naturally I had also stored the filePro record number to be updated in
>> the declared variable RecordNo.) Well, this doesn't work because you
>> can't use a variable for the name of the lookup file. Bummer.
>>     
>
> Excuse me?  I use the above all the time, as I'm sure do 90% of the
> regulars on this list.
>
> Can you define "doesn't work"?
>
>   
Yes, I get a syntax error pointing to (Filename) as the source of 
trouble. This is with version 5.0.14D4

>> So instead
>> of a single line of code for however many filePro files I was working
>> with I had to make a line of code for each individual file with the file
>> names hardcoded like this:
>>
>> if:   FileName eq "customer"
>> then: lookup fil=customer r=(RecordNo) -ex
>> if:   FileName eq "contact"
>> then:  lookup fil=contact r=(RecordNo) -ex
>>     
>
> That's unnecessary, as the original version you have should work fine.
>
> [...]
>   
>> fil(FieldNum) = FieldVal
>>
>> Again, bummer. It isn't allowed. This one is more painful. Some of the
>> files have hundreds of possible fields. Instead of the simple code above
>> I have to resort to this type of coding:
>>
>> if:   FieldNum eq "1"
>> then: fil(1) = FieldVal
>> if:   FieldNum eq "2"
>> then: fil(2) = FieldVal
>>     
>
> No, you don't.
>
> Alias an array:
>
>     dim fields[999]:fil[1]
>
> and then:
>
>     fields[FieldNum] = FieldVal
>   
I'll give it a try! It's nice to have a way to do the job. I just don't 
understand why the intuitive approach I outlined doesn't work. Note: the 
fact that I don't understand why illustrates that there is missing 
information here. It is not necessarily a fault of the code for not 
doing things the way I'd expect it to. In this case it could well be a 
fault in the documentation that either doesn't explain the technique 
sufficiently or the documentation is written so that finding the 
pertinent description was quite difficult.

Thanks,

Dan