|
> From: Simon Coulter > > > Am I missing something here (more than usual)? > > I'm afraid so. The problem is with your test construct. I thought so. > >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). > > The fundamental mistake is the use of OR in a negative clause. You should > be using AND. Makes sense. I read the OR version in the archives here, and just didn't have the brain cells available to try and reason it through. The AND bothered me for the reason you mentioned - a previous read would kill it. Even for the file-specific versions of the BIF, two passes through the loop would make it fail, since the EOF would be set by the first pass. The IF/DOU is very inelegant to me (an enddo followed by an endif for the same loop is quite unappealing), so I suspect I will be moving back to the SETLL/READE loops of yesteryear, as outlined by Martin in an earlier post.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.