|
First of all, it COULD break code, since someone may be checkinf %FOUND to get the result of the last CHAIN operation, having done a READE in between the CHAIN and the check of %FOUND. Second, do you SERIOUSLY think that %FOUND is a better indicator for "end of file" than %EOF? I think the confusion comes because people used to be able to define any indicator they liked to indicate either FOUND or EOF, and they would regularly use the same indicator for both because it made it easy to write a loop. I think the solution to the problem lies in us having the ability to define NAMED indicators (not just numeric) as the result of a CHAIN, READ, READE, etc so that people once again have that flexibility. Making %FOUND signal end-of-file is definitely NOT intuitive. On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 cozzi@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > It wouldn't break code. It would just work as expected now. > Besides, usually I expect to hear that from an IBMer. <vbg> >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.