Re: Debug eval RPGLE %BIFs

[boldt@xxxxxxxxxx]

Roger Vicker, CCP wrote:
>I'll have to recheck this tomorrow my gray matter cpu may have been
>stuttering
>also. I've been using DBGVIEW(*SOURCE) and the standard IBM debugger
>with
>DSPMODSRC. It would be very helpfull in moving to the new BIFS if you
>can check them like any other valid field before stepping into a
>complex statement using them.

I understand your request.  But, don't forget that most BIFFs have
a great deal of functionality underneath.  Think of a BIFF as a
sort of procedure call.  Debuggers normally don't allow displaying
values returned by procedures.  I suppose it could be done, but at
what cost?

>I see some responses that agree with the "working as designed" setup.
>My point of
>view was some what more centered on the file cursor and the INFDS. I
>simply
>expected that since the cursor was pointing to a record then the
>_FILE_ was not
>at %EOF. I understand that the %EOF can be a reference to only the
>last read and
>that is a valid expectation from the operation function point of view.
>As far as
>a "CHAIN not resulting in an EOF" I can agree that it shouldn't but
>again from
>the FILE view it can result in a %NOT(%EOF) if successful. I wonder,
>with an
>un-successful CHAIN what is the cursor status?
>
>The application of this might be in the combined sequential-by-key and
>random
>access such as:
>
>key    chain file
>        if   %found(file)
>        dou  %eof(file)
>        ....
>key    reade file
>        endo
>        endif
>
>could be rewritten as:
>
>key    chain  file
>    dow    %not(%eof(file))
>    ....
>    key    reade  file
>    enddo
>
>Also, if we want to get picky <grin> then a READE and READPE may or
>may not cause
>an actual %EOF when the records matching the key are exhausted. If
>there are keys
>greater than the factor 1 then the READE is not really %EOF but is
>%NOT(%FOUND).
>Perhaps the "proper" implied structure is that any time the file
>cursor points to
>a valid record then %NOT(%EOF) and when %EOF occurs it should also set
>%NOT(%FOUND)?

I see your point.  But as we've already seen from other notes,
the current behavior matches the documentation, and others are
not dissatisfied with that behavior.  Futhermore, changing that
behavior could make existing code work incorrectly, which would
definitely upset people.  So, we don't see any need to change
that behavior.  Sorry.

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


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