RE: CPYF question

Yuck.  May I recommend that you give consideration to OPNQRYF & CPYFRMQRYF?
If you look at the article that prompted the one you linked, at
http://www.itjungle.com/guruo/mgo012302-story02.html, even Ted recommends
this approach.

I can't believe IBM let this slip by.  Was this the behavior right from the
beginning of CPYF on the S/38?

What should be done about this?  On the one hand, it should be considered a
bug, and be corrected.  Paul was lucky in that he discovered this in
testing.  Others might not catch it and pay a big price later.  On the other
hand, 25+ years of history with this bug with programs using it, perhaps
expecting this as a desirable behavior?  (Yeah, 'MI' *EQuals 'MIabc'; sounds
like new math to me!)

Maybe the "fix" would be that IBM adds another parameter to CPYF: EQMEANSEQ
(*YES or *NO).

Bleahh, bleahh, bleahh.

db

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx / pnelson@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:08 AM
>
> I've given up. I'm going to try this approach:
>
> http://www.itjungle.com/mgo/mgo082802-story01.html
>
>
> Paul Nelson
> Arbor Solutions, Inc.
> 708-670-6978  Cell
> pnelson@xxxxxxxxxx