Assignments to uncast dummy fields (was Re: simple

[Tyler]

> Hmmm...how does filePro decide if xx="0" is meant as a string or a
> numeric?  It could be either, depending on the context you use it in
> later.  What about things like "00019", where you would want to keep
> the leading zero?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have all undefined
> variables be of edit * than automagically assigning them an edit type?

If you tried it using the test template Ken provided, you would see that
operations like xx="0" or xx="00019" *do* result in an * edit for xx.
filePro makes no assumptions about literal strings assigned in this
manner, just as seems logical to you.

Only expressions that explicitly perform a math operation, like Ken's
final example, will result in xx receiving a numeric edit type.

But...I am not assigning from a field or variable at all, nor am I
performing any mathematical operation.  I am assigning 'r' from
FIELDVAL.  Does this mean that FIELDVAL also does a silent casting of
the variable based on the edit of the FIELDVAL field being referenced?
 I would have thought the return value of a function would not have an
explicit type.

Tyler