I think this should generate a syntaxerror...whatdoeseveryoneelse think?

[Mike Schwartz (PC Support)]

> Bruce Easton Wrote:
> Ken - but we are winding up with no data for such a field that has been
> completely blanked out.  And we said yes to shrink the file, so wouldn't
> it
> stand to reason that there is no longer any purpose for the map
> placeholder
> for the field?  F3/F4 makes sense to me because you are providing it as a

     I must be completely missing the boat on what you are asking, because,
for example, if I were able to completely delete field 25 in my database,
all of the other numbered fields would move down one field number.  IE,
field 26 now becomes field 25, 27 becomes 26, etc.  Wouldn't that break all
my processing where I am posting something to field 26 or 27?  Or don't you
ever post data to a numbered field in filePro or reference fields by field
number in your processing?

     I always assumed this was a reason why we couldn't use the F3/F4 key to
insert or delete a new field.

     Personally, I don't mind the blank fields as place holders.  I have
written numerous archive applications where I purposely zero out the length
of some fields that aren't essential for my archiving purposes, but then use
a single "copy" command to copy old data to the archive files.  This keeps
my archive file small.  I'd hate to have to write field by field posting for
each archive process that I write.

Mike Schwartz