dreport versus rreport

[Kenneth Brody]

On 3/25/2013 11:53 AM, Ian Wood wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net>wrote:
>
>> In answer to the recent "rreport vs. dreport" thread, along with the "I've
>> been using filePro for ${BIGNUM} years, and I've never run into this
>> before"
>> comments...
>>
>> I hope this clears things up.
[...]
>> For example:
>>
>>       aa = aa + ytd_sales
>>
>> without executing something like:
>>
>>       aa = ""
>> or
>>       aa = some_value
[...]
> In short, the above is NOT the case with the very example I sent to fptech,
> they still have the files, so that can be verified.

I realize that you have dropped the topic, now that you know you need to 
compile with "-y".  However, your processing does, in fact, do the above. 
(You didn't send all of the lookup files, so fpsupport can't actually run 
the report to see if this is the cause.)  There may be other instances as 
well, but I stopped looking.

Your output processing "whltaly9", line 47, has:

     vg(10,.2,g) = vg + 18

And dummy field "vg" is defined in the automatic table, but not "autotaly".

Also, compiling "whltaly9" gives numerous warnings about dummy field 
definition conflicts, such as:

     Warning: Line  47 - VG already has an attribute of (74,ALLUP) in 'auto'
     processing

-- 
Kenneth Brody