× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



John,

The %EOF and %Found flags are relatively new, nowhere near 20 years old. I used the same technique as you in the "olden" days, when you could use the same resulting indicator for both opcodes. I suggest you inspect your code to see that it's really doing what you intend it to do.

-mark

At 3/26/04 02:36 PM, you wrote:
Mark,
Thanks for the advice, but I'll stick with what has worked for the past 20
years or so.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: M. Lazarus [mailto:mlazarus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:38 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Loop code


John,


  Not so fast!!  You have two separate conditions.  The priming CHAIN
generates one condition and the READx another.  So you need to account for
that.  Putting both conditions on the loop is kludgy, IMHO.  Both
conditions will be tested during each loop execution.  Unfortunately, IBM
chose this implementation, so the easiest is the use SETLL/READE, so the
I/O opcodes are compatible.

-mark

At 3/26/04 01:12 PM, you wrote:
>I stand corrected, if you change the %eof to %found.
>Boy, these BIF's are wonderful, aren't they.
>
>John Brandt
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: M. Lazarus [mailto:mlazarus@xxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:55 AM
>To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
>Subject: RE: Loop code
>
>
>John,
>
>At 3/26/04 12:12 PM, you wrote:
> >I don't see anywhere that there are any holes in my code.
> >
> >Are you implying that the line
> >C     myklist       chain     myfile
> >is "if I feel like it, and I haven't chained before, chain. Otherwise,
just
> >skip this one?"
> >The Chain will set the %eof condition when it is executed.
>
>   No it won't - CHAIN sets the %Found indicator, while READx sets the %EOF
>(and %Equal) indicator.
>
>
> >If the chain fails, the DOW(hile) will not execute, as it shouldn't.
>
>   That could be coincidence / luck - if there was a prior READx that set
>the %EOF() indicator.
>
>
> >It works very well on my system and the systems of thousands of my
clients.
>
>   Then your systems have a compiler bug!  :)
>
>   -mark
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: M. Lazarus [mailto:mlazarus@xxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:31 AM
> >To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> >Subject: Loop code
> >
> >
> >John,
> >
> >   There are 2 holes in your code:
> >
> >1)  If the CHAIN fails the loop will still execute, probably displaying
> >incorrect data.  CHAIN sets the %Found() flag.
> >
> >2)  If you will be executing this code more than once within the program
> >the loop will probably NOT execute.  This is because the %EOF() condition
> >will likely have already been set by the previous execution of this loop.
> >
> >   Changing the CHAIN to a SETLL/READE combo should fix the problem.
> >
> >   -mark
> >
> >At 3/26/04 11:12 AM, you wrote:
> > >While his code would write a duplicate record at the bottom of the
>subfile,
> > >and your code may be efficient, my suggestion would be:
> > >
> > >C     myklist       chain     myfile
> > >C                   dow       NOT %eof(myfile)
> > >C                   eval      rrn = rrn + 1
> > >C                   write     mysubfile
> > >C     myklist       reade     myfile
> > >C                   enddo
> > >
> > >JMHO
> > >John Brandt
> > >iStudio400.com
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Marvin Radding [mailto:MRadding@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:58 AM
> > >To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: RE: RPG400-L Digest, Vol 3, Issue 231
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >While there is nothing wrong with your code, I think this way is more
> > >effiecient.
> > >
> > >C     myklist       setll     myfile
> > >C
> > >C                   dou       %eof(myfile)
> > >C
> > >C     myklist       reade     myfile
> > >C                   if        %eof(myfile)
> > >C                   iter
> > >C                   endif
> > >C
> > >C                   eval      rrn = rrn + 1
> > >C                   write     mysubfile
> > >C
> > >C                   enddo
> > >
> > >Marvin Radding
> > >
> > >
> > >message: 1
> > >date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:32:35 -0800 (PST)
> > >from: simafrog <SimaFrog@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >subject: SETLL ONE SLIGHT PROBLEM
> > >
> > >Actually I don't think I can do this here anyway. One problem remaining
> > >is that the reade of the Detail file is causing one extra record to be
> > >added to the work file, the last one of the batch is duplicated. Here
is
> > >the code:
> > >  C           BLD       BEGSR
> > >  C*
> > >  C           OHKEY     SETLLORDHEDR             40
> > >  C*
> > >  C           *IN40     DOWEQ*OFF
> > >  C*
> > >
> > >  C           OHKEY     READEORDHEDR                 40
> > >  C           *IN40     IFEQ '0'
> > >  C*
> > >  C           C*
> > >  C           ODKEY     SETLLORDDTL                   50
> > >  C           *IN50     DOUEQ*ON
> > >  C           ODKEY     READEORDDTL                   50
> > >  C                     WRITEORDSWRKF
> > >  C                     END
> > >  C                     END
> > >  C                     END
> > >  C*
> > >  C                     ENDSR


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.