RE: What bugs you about KLISTs in RPG IV?

Your idea is interesting. 

But let me draw your attention to a problem that comes to my mind- If
suppose you do not have a KLIST and  as it often happens there are changes
to key fields (although not frequently). So if I use your method then I will
have to change the same in  many a places. Especially when you are using
physical file fields in the KLIST. This may make maintenance difficult. So
therefore I would still prefer to use KLISTS. 

Another problem you have not addressed is the - facility to use F11 on a
KLIST. This is facility will be useful and will be highly appreciated.

Thanks

Cheers

Vijosh A
Systems & Software
123 , SDF-  4,  SEEPZ
Bombay India.

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   boldt@ca.ibm.com [SMTP:boldt@ca.ibm.com]
        Sent:   Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:50 PM
        To:     RPG400-L@midrange.com
        Subject:        RE: What bugs you about KLISTs in RPG IV?



        Thanks for your input on this issue!

        Here's a bit more background:  We understand fully why people
        want to be able to define KLISTs in D-Specs.   However, while
        a KLIST does define a klist name, the key fields are somewhat
        awkward on the D-Spec.  For example, although you can  define
        fields on the KFLD opcode, you can also  code indexed arrays,
        which are not allowed today in positions 7-21 of the D-Spec.

        Someone raised the idea of a "KLIST Data Structure".  That is
        an interesting idea which I'll pursue further.   But, I don't
        think it would be able  to fully replace the functionality of
        of the KLIST.

        One person came close to another idea that we've been playing
        with here in the lab.  As you know, there are rumors floating
        around about a new free-format calc spec.  Let's assume for a
        moment  that these rumors are true.  This would give new ways
        to enhance old opcodes.  The main thing  that has bothered me
        about KLISTs is that they are necessary at all! If we weren't
        limited to 14 chars in Factor 1, we would be able to list the
        keys directly in the CHAIN opcode.  Imagine for a moment:

             cf   chain (custno: acctno: date) mastfile

        or even:

             cf  chain (prodno: 'X' + subcode(n+14)) mastfile

        In other words, full expressions coded directly as key fields
        for the keyed I/O operations!

        So todays questions are:  Would you take advantage of this if
        available?  Would you still use KLISTs?

        Cheers!  Hans

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


        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
        * This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new
*
        * message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To
unsubscribe   *
        * from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify
*
        * 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions
should *
        * be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com
*
        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *