Long variable name losing value

[Bruce Easton]

Barry Wiseman wrote Friday, February 15, 2008 6:47 PM:

> 
> 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. :-)
> 
:):) That's exactly what I might have written had someone 
posted an example like this.  I was very careful to check 
all labels and refs to the variable, but I'll try to provide 
more code and info in another post.  I am showing all refs 
to "log_name."  

Bruce

Bruce Easton
STN, Inc.