At 09:07 01/22/1999 -0500, Hans Boldt wrote:
>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?

Undoubtedly people have used this behavior in routines that combine
sequential-by-key and random access. Personally, I don't find it illogical.
"EOF" implies that you are reading sequentially through a file and have
reached the end. "Found" on the other hand, implies that a specific record
has been retrieved from the database. I generally hang with the lunatic
fringe though...
Pete Hall
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to
| To subscribe to this list send email to
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:

This thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by 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].