On 3/5/14 10:36 AM, CRPence wrote:
The order of the records, collated by the names of the files listed,
is not necessarily a chronological ordering.
Actually, *IF* (as you say) the records are guaranteed to be collated by
name, I found something straight from the relevant equine masticatory
> When a log-version is full, a new version of the log is automatically
> created. Each version is a physical file that is named in the
> following way:
> where the following is true:
> xxx Is a 3-character description of the log type (HST)
> yyddd Is the Julian date of the first message in the log version
> n Is a sequence number within the Julian date
> (A through Z and 0 through 9)
which tells me they would only break chronological sequence if they
somehow crossed a century boundary, which is (to say the least) unlikely
to happen again within the product life of IBM midrange systems.