I think this should generateasyntaxerror...whatdoeseveryoneelsethink?

[GCC Consulting]

Top post,

I one really needs to remove these unused fields in the middle of the amp,
and is sure that it will not have an effect on any of you programs, one
could create a new file without the fields to be removed. 

Use fp copy to copy your old file without the data. 

Edit the map to remove the unwanted fields.

Copy you old data to the new file.

Check your data

Delete the old file.

Rename the new file to the old files name.

This will eliminate the "unwanted" fields.  However, as pointed out, you may
get bitten in the end :).

I sometimes create file and reserve a group of fields in the middle to allow
me to add in additional information.  This is especially true of file in
which I am using associated fields.  Although with 5.6 this is not necessary
as one can mow dimension an array to a non-contiguous associated fields.

Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial
> .com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.c
> elestial.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Easton
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:25 AM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: RE: I think this should 
> generateasyntaxerror...whatdoeseveryoneelsethink?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>