RE: CHAIN vs. SETLL

["Jim Langston" <jlangston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, shoot. You're right.  I forgot all about that.  Not but a few weeks
ago I wrote a program that checked for duplicate key which I used a chain
for so of course I had to save the buffer so I had to create temporary
variables and...

I guess I just don't use SETLL enough to remember all it's implications.

Thanks for the reminder, even though I wasn't the original poster (nor did
I even see the original post).

Regards,

Jim Langston
Programmer/Analyst
Cels Enterprises, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com]On
Behalf Of Reeve Fritchman
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:00 AM
To: RPG400-L@midrange. com
Subject: CHAIN vs. SETLL


My understanding is that CHAIN grabs the record and fills the input buffer,
whilst (it's the British influence taking over) SETLL checks the access path
only for the existence of the key.

If I want to know if a record with an identical key is already in the file,
I SETLL.  Yes, there are application reasons to do this!