Title: RE: Non-Join Multi PF Logical File Format

RPG works just as well as COBOL, except as I mentioned earlier you must OVRDBF prior to the compile for RPG.

I sent my COBOL test earlier, here is the RPG sample:

FILEA:
R REC1           
  FLD1          10

FILEB:
R REC1           
  FLD1          10

FILEAB:
                             UNIQUE           
 R REC1                      PFILE(FILEA FILEB)
 K FLD1                                       

prior to compile, issue command:

ovrdbf fileab filea

compile RPG, then
dltovr fileab

here is RPG code:
Ffileab    IP   E           k DISK          
                                            
                                            
c     fld1          dsply                   
                                            
Clr                 eval      *inLR = *on   

here is job log:

     
call fileabrpg  
DSPLY  FROM FILEA
DSPLY  FROM FILEB


Same result as COBOL, but requires tricking the RPG compiler with an OVRDBF command!




-----Original Message-----
From: David Keck [mailto:dkeck@idt.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:06 PM
To: COBOL400-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Non-Join Multi PF Logical File Format


But with that reasoning could you see any reason why RPG could not use the
file ?  But it can't.  The reason RPG can't use the file is because non-join
LF's defined with a record format based on multiple PF's yields a duplicate
format name problem.  The compile will fail.  Since the LF itself is defined
with duplicate format names the problem can not be resoved via overrides or
format renames in the RPG.  It is not clear to me that a COBOL program can
be written to use such a file, as defined in the examples.  I would really
like to know.
R    RFILE1    PFILE(PF01 PF02)
A    K    Field01
A    K    Field02

----- Original Message -----
From: <Chris.Chambers@v2music.com>
To: <COBOL400-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Non-Join Multi PF Logical File Format


> So it merges the two physicals together?
>
> I see no reason that COBOL could'nt use it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
> +---
> | This is the COBOL/400 Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to COBOL400-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to COBOL400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
COBOL400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
> +---END
>
>

+---
| This is the COBOL/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to COBOL400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to COBOL400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to COBOL400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2021 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.