I think this should generateasyntaxerror...whatdoeseveryoneelse think?

[Bruce Easton]

> Bruce Easton wrote Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 07:16:46PM:
>> 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?

Jean-Pierre Radley wrote Sat 1/27/2007 4:16 PM:
[..]
> We do NOT want to eliminate it in the field number sequence
[..]

and

Mike Schwartz wrote Sat 1/27/2007 4:10 PM:
[..]
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.
[..]

What you missed was what I also wrote in the same post:

>> My concern on this so far is really only about the case
>> where filepro is leaving the colons for completely empty
>> map entries at the end of the logical map (key + any data),
>> where I wouldn't think any renumbering should have to occur.

My point was, if restructuring was occurring anyway eliminating data for
fields that were removed off of the END of the map, why leave a map with a
series of one or more sets of blank colons at the end (as John has also
clarified).  I also really don't care much - I just think it is odd that
they are left there at the end.

Bruce

Bruce Easton
STN, Inc.