Long variable name losing value

[Barry Wiseman]

Bruce Easton wrote:
> I'm seeing something kooky today where it appears that a long
> variable is losing its value.
> 
> Here is not all, but what I hope are the relevant parts of the
> prc table (runs from clerk - 5.014):
> 
>   1  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>          If:
>        Then: exit
>   2  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> @menu    If:
>        Then:
>   3  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>          If:
>        Then: declare GLOBAL log_name(14,*)
>   4  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>          If:
>        Then: '
>   5  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>          If: '[this is the ONLY called table (no chained tables)]
>        Then: CALL "setup"      '[setup does not reference "log_name"]
>   6  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> .
> .            '[debugger here shows log_name has a value]
> 158  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> process  If:
>        Then: 'process file
> 159  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> .     [there are a couple of sys commands in here that are running
> .      to completion OK]
> 233  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>          If:  '[debugger shows log_name is blank and so is new(323)]
>        Then: new(323)=log_name
> 234  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> .     [there is an import here that is successfully assigning
> .      to other 'new' fields]
> 375  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> enndd    If:  '[the record is being created, all but field new(323)]
>        Then: close new                         '[populated OK]
> 376  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> 
> 
> To get around this, I have assigned a field ln(14,*)=log_name up
> on line 4, then below that I now only assign 'new(323)' from ln.
> Field new(323) is now getting its value OK this way.
> Does anyone know why the long variable could lose its
> value?

Probably due to something that happens on lines 7-232. :-)