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

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.