Re: DSPF Record format ID differences -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: DSPF Record format ID differences
From: Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:01:36 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 6/1/2017 4:08 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:

Why would a two versions of a display file have different record format IDs
when the fields appear identical?

I have a vague tickle about a PTF that addressed a problem like this.
Were the two *DSPFs created at different OS levels?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: DSPF Record format ID differences , Charles Wilt

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.