× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: Debug eval RPGLE %BIFs
  • From: boldt@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:07:29 -0500



Roger Vicker, CCP wrote:
>Has anyone else tried during a debug session of an RPG/ILE (CRTBNDRPG)
>program  to eval one of the new file bifs (%EQUAL, %FOUND, %EOF)? I
>tried this today and the debugger insisted that the Identifier doe not
>exist. I tried both form %FOUND and %FOUND(FILE). Other bifs used in
>the program (%ELEM...) can be evalled ok.
>System is V4R3M0 which means the RPG is V4R2M0, most current cum ptf.

I'm looking at a debug session now, and I get errors when I
try to do EVAL %ELEM(ARR) or EVAL %SIZE(ARR).  What debugger
are you using?

>I also noticed that a successful CHAIN does not reset the %EOF. I
>scanned "ILE RPG for AS/400 Reference" for any information on bifs and
>these particular bifs without finding any mention that this would be
>normal behavior. It seems to me that if a CHAIN (or SETLL for that
>matter) that is successful, the file cursor now points to a valid
>record and therefore the %EOF should be false especially when the
>INFDS is.

Well, the RPG Reference I'm looking at (on page 364) says:

   %EOF returns '1' if the most recent read operation or write
   to a subfile ended in an end of file or beginning of file
   condition; otherwise, it returns '0'.

   The operations that set %EOF are:

   - READ
   - READC
   - READE
   - READP
   - READPE
   - WRITE (subfile only)

So this is working as described - %EOF is not affected by
successful CHAIN or SETLL operations.

This begs the question, though:  Is this what RPG programmers
expect?  Although this is working as intended, clearly %EOF
does not reflect the end-of-file status as reflected in the
INFDS.  Would this be a more reasonable behavior for %EOF?
Would any working programs be affected if we made this change?

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.