|
Hi Dan,
midrange.com
It seems to me that one of two things should happen. Either show the
value, even if it isn't referenced, or show a message that states
something similar to CPF7E12 ("Identifier does not exist"), maybe
"Identifier exists, but is unreferenced in the program". Even though
the former has appeal to me, perhaps the latter is more appropriate.
At least I would keep more of my hair.
What's happening is that the compiler has created variable definitions for all of the fields in the file. However, to make the program run faster, it doesn't generate code to copy the field's value from the database to your program, since your program doesn't use the field anyway. Copying the data, and possibly also converting it from one data type to another, does require work from the computer, so why do it if it's not needed?
You can force the fields to all be loaded by defining them in a data structure. As long as the data structure is used somewhere in your program, all of the fields in it will be considered "in use".
If the compiler didn't generate variable definitions for the fields, you couldn't use the LIKE capability either.
I agree that the current behavior is unintuitive. It would be nice if you got a useful error message instead of just blanks.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
