I think this should generate a syntax error... what doeseveryone else think?

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting John Esak (Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:08:39 -0500):

> >
> > Quoting John Esak (Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:41:26 -0500):
[...]
> > >         then: 009=""
[...]
> > Leading zeros in numbers aren't significant.   Therefore, the numbers
> > "009" and "9" are equivalent.
>
> Yes, but we are talking about *fields* here...

But, you are referring to the field by its number.

> what if I were trying to
> assign to 00a... wouldn't you throw up an error?  I know you say leading
> zeros on numbers... but... but...

You would get an error because "00a" is not a valid (decimal) number.

> > > Also, while we are at it. I just tried assigning to field 229 when
> > > it doesn't exist. No error, no warning. I think this would be
> > > helpful to...
> >
> > I get a syntax error.
[...]
> Okay, I know why you did get an error and I didn't. Try this.
>
[... create 9 fields, add data, then change fields so that 7 through
     9 are blanked out in the map.
...]
> Then, when you assign to field 9, which you *know* you just removed,
> it does not complain in any way. No syntax error.  Yes, I see thatthe
> fields are still actually there with the colons and all in the map...
> and they are visible on the F6 screen...

Yes.  You have simply made them zero length with no name.

> it just seems odd that the fields can be
> completely empty and still be able to (or at least *appear* to be able
> to) take assignment.

There's nothing syntactically wrong with such an assignemnt.  You may
argue that it's a semantic error that should be caught at runtime,
but it's not considered an error.

[...]

--
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com