RE: 3440:Operation not supported when trying to read an IFS File. -- RPG400-L

Emmanuel, Scott,

I have reviewed the thread in order to pick up a few points myself and Ithought I'd share what I found:



Emmanuel,

Regarding the first parameter of the open API, Scott in indeed correct. Youcan (and should) simply place the name of the varying field containing thefile name here. The extra "pointer" work is unnecessary and incorrect. So,for the open in program readFile you simply need:


// Open file for reading text data...
fileDesc = open(fileName :O_TEXTDATA + O_RDWR);

I believe the other parameters on the API call, and the other lines in theexamples I provided are OK, and all works well for me. It was just this oneparameter which is incorrect.



Scott,

Regarding your notes in the last mail to me:

<snip>
Notes:
-- You do not need to use %addr() or pass a pointer.  In fact, if you
  _do_, you'll create problems, because the automatic x'00' will no
  longer be added.
</snip>

Point taken, and a lesson learned. Thank you.

<snip>
-- You do not need to add x'00' manually, options(*string) adds it for
  you as long as you're bright enough not to pass a pointer.
</snip>

It's interesting that you equate knowledge of RPG with intellectual prowess.It would appear that I am not "bright enough" because I chose to pass apointer in this case. I would sincerely question the logic that leads you tothis conclusion. But again, point taken about the pointer - again.


<snip>
-- You do not need to add 2 to the address. Since you're not passing
  a pointer, but are using the functionality of the RPG language, it
  KNOWS that your field is VARYING.  It KNOWS that the intended result
  is a null-terminated string.  It'll convert it for you.
</snip>

Again, point taken about the pointer - again.

<snip>

The really frustrating part is that I've already explained this to Emmanuel,and a day later you come and do it wrong, and convince him to do it wrong.It's enough to make you want to chew your own foot off!

</snip>

It's also interesting that given the option of chewing your own foot off ortaking a swipe at me - you chose the latter. Granted, a small part of my twocode samples was incorrect, and granted you have the right to point thisout. I'll even concede that you was frustrated because my "incorrect"solution was taken up and your "correct" advice was not heeded. However, Iwould appreciate it if you tried not to vent this frustration on me.

You are an extremely talented programmer, there's no denying that. But haveyou ever wondered why so few programmers post "solutions" to this forum? Iwould suggest it is because they want to avoid exactly this kind of responseif they get a little part of their code wrong. Many of us are all stilllearning, and we are trying to pay back a little for the good advice we'vebeen given by other members of this list. Of course we'll get some thingswrong, and it is right that we're corrected when we give incorrect advice.But I'm not here for you to vent your frustration on.

So, next time you feel the urge to chew your own foot off - please take yourboots off first. :-)


Cheers, and thanks for your time.

Larry Ducie