RE: Resetting %EOF

["Bob Cozzi" <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

Barbara,

> > If so, does this mean we can check for error conditions without
> > specifying the "E" extender, but simply testing the %STATUS value
> > instead of the Boolean-like %ERROR?
> >
>
> No, true error conditions will cause an error unless you code
> E.  The "E" is the indication that the error should be
> handled, sort of like the presence of a MONMSG after a CL command.


But then how do you check for the error condition's status error code?
If %STATUS is truly set all the time?
I thought the philosophy was use (E), then check for an error by looking
at %ERROR, if it was *ON, then you'd look at %STATUS to see what the
specific error was. But if %STATUS is always set, why do you still need
%ERROR? Is %STATUS always set or not?

Bob