RE: Strange effect of conditioning DSPF fields

Hi Gary

Yes I do, the only thing I can find that works is hard coding a blank
between the two fields.

Thanks

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Monnier
Sent: 10 July 2007 15:50
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Strange effect of conditioning DSPF fields

Jonathan,

How is your REFFLD(TEXT) defined? If you define COMMENT with an actual
size, rather than with a REFFLD, do you have the same difficulty?

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Mason
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:39 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: Strange effect of conditioning DSPF fields


Hi Francis

Yes, I tried it on the line immediately after the REFFLD and also tried
defining the field directly and putting it on the same line as the
field, but neither made any difference.

Thanks

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lapeyre, Francis
Sent: 10 July 2007 15:13
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Strange effect of conditioning DSPF fields

Have you tried moving that CHECK(LC) line to just after the field name?
Maybe *IN33 is carrying over the conditioning from the DSPATR(PC) line.

I always put the unconditional stuff first.


A FLD235 23A O 9 4TEXT('Entry for Log . . . .
.')
A MSGID(CM0 0058 AUKMSGF)
A 9 28'.'
A COMMENT R B 9 30REFFLD(TEXT)
A CHECK(LC)
A N33 COLOR(WHT)
A 33 COLOR(RED)
A 33 DSPATR(PC)

Francis Lapeyre
IS Dept. Programmer/Analyst
Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
E-mail: flapeyre@xxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Mason
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:41 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: Strange effect of conditioning DSPF fields

I've been having a problem today with trying to enable lower case entry
for a field on a display file, where no matter what I did nothing seemed
to work. The issue appears to be that the next field in the DDS is
conditioned by an indicator, but I don't understand why that should have
an effect on the previous field.

For example, in the sample DDS below the COMMENT field doesn't allow
lower case entry even though CHECK(LC) is defined.


A FLD235 23A O 9 4TEXT('Entry for Log . . . .
.')

A MSGID(CM0 0058 AUKMSGF)

A 9 28'.'

A COMMENT R B 9 30REFFLD(TEXT)

A N33 COLOR(WHT)

A 33 COLOR(RED)

A 33 DSPATR(PC)

A CHECK(LC)

A*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 51 FLD602 60A O 11 2TEXT('Objects selected for
Add')

A MSGID(CM4 0074 AUKMSGF)

A COLOR(BLU)

A*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, if I add the following line between the CHECK(LC) and the
definition for FLD602, lower case works.

A 9 78' '


Does anybody know why this effect happens?

Thanks

Jonathan