RE: Loop code

| -----Original Message-----
| From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Tuohy
| Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:25 PM
| To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
| Subject: Re: Loop code
|
|
| jt,
|
| <snip>
| > I'm talking that a BIF should be IN A KNOWN STATE.  It's either
| on or off,
| > and that SIGNIFIES the known state.  So it would be a case of either the
| > CHAIN should do nothing whatsoever with the %EOF, which makes a lotta
| sense
| > to me.  Or it should set it one way or the other.
| <end snip>
|
| The KNOWN STATE that the %EOF BIF reflects is the status of the file
| pointer - it is or isn't at EOF.
|
| A READ etc. moves the pointer, therefore it can change the state of EOF.
| A CHAIN can only move the pointer IF the record was found. Only a
| successful
| CHAIN can change the state of EOF.
|
| If the %EOF BIF is to reflect the KNOWN STATE then this is the way it must
| work.
|
| Paul

You're working backwards from your conclusion to your facts, Paul.

On a CHAIN, and using EITHER the %FOUND or an *IN..  It's either *ON or
*OFF.  It is NOT left unchanged under any circumstances (unless I'm very
sadly mistaken, which is slightly possible in this case).  And the position
of the file pointer after an unsuccessful CHAIN??  Dunno, but it SURE
doesn't have ANYthing to do with the KNOWN STATE of either %FOUND or the
*IN.

Frankly, Paul, I believe if Hans or Barbara or any number of other people
were saying the Exact Same Thing I've been saying here..  Well I believe
you'd be agreeing with them quicker 'n anything.  I think it's because I
disagreed with your post early on, why you're not seeing the blatant
inconsistencies inherent with the usage of BIF, as it is currently defined.