RE: %EOF, %FOUND and the infamous Dow loop

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

Phil,

That looks good...  I think I'll go with that.

(Don't much cotton to the extraneous IF, but...)

Thanks.

jt


| -----Original Message-----
| Behalf Of Phil
| Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 10:58 AM
|
| Using chain to position the file & read the first record, won't this work:
|
|
|      C     key           chain     testfile
|      C                   if        %found(testfile)
|      C                   dow       not %eof(testfile)
|      C
|       * -- do whatever
|      C
|      C     key           reade     testfile
|      C                   enddo
|      C                   endif
|
| Phil
|
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > Behalf Of Joe Pluta
| > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 5:25 AM
| >
| > I did some researching back a ways, and I found that there have
| been a few
| > discussions regarding the use of the file I/O BIFs.  It seemed to always
| > revolve around which of the basic CHAIN/SETLL/READE loops you
| used.  Now,
| > ever since I was able to, I've used the following standard code:
| >
| >       CHAIN
| > *IN90 DOWEQ *OFF
| >     (process)
| >       READE
| >       ENDDO
| >
| > This, I know, is only one of many possible variations, but it's
| > the one that
| > has always appealed to my sense of decorum.  This is definitely
| not a good
| > argument for its use, but it has always worked quite nicely for me.  The
| > only other mode I found nearly as appealing was the following:
| >
| >       SETLL
| > *OFF  DOWEQ *ON
| >       READE
| > *IN90 IFEQ *ON
| >       LEAVE
| >       ENDIF
| >     (process)
| >       ENDDO
| >
| > This is basically the equivalent of the RCVF/GOTO loop I use in
| > CL, with an
| > unconditional loop and a LEAVE being the "structured"
| equivalent.  I'm not
| > happy with the four extra lines of code, but hey, it's relatively
| > efficient
| > and has a couple of benefits, such as allowing the use of ITER.
| >
| > The second form can fairly readily be converted to use the file I/O BIF
| > %eof, thereby removing indicator use.  The first, however,
| > because the CHAIN
| > and READE command set different BIFs, is a little harder.  Has anyone
| > figured out a way to do it?  I tried to use (%found or not %eof)
| > along with
| > the operation extenders, and it seems to always return true
| (putting me in
| > an infinite loop reprocessing the last record over and over).  Am
| > I missing
| > something here (more than usual)?
| >
| > Joe