RE: Loop code

[rick.baird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Joe,

I'm in agreement with most of what you said, except for this little
quibble:

I'm confused by your definition of 'successful' or 'unsuccessful'
operation.

If you chain to a file, with say, key 4, and only key 1,2, 6 and 7 are in
the file, the chain was unsuccessful at retrieving the record, but success
was achieved in moving the file pointer to record 6 for a subsequent read,
or 2 for a readp.  the file pointer has changed, and we are no longer at
%eof.
if you chain with an 8, your file pointer may or may not have changed, but
you still can't test for %eof until you do a read.

Same goes for a SetLL -
If you setll with a 4, you've successfully changed your file pointer, you
are no longer at %eof (if you were before).
If you setll with an 8, the operatio was a success, and your pointer is at
the end of the file, but you aren't at %eof yet - you must do a subsequent
'read'

I find this wholy consistant - %eof IS for testing the result of a 'read'
operation, not the position of a file pointer.  The fact that any chain or
setxx operation sets this off is makes it even more consistant.

Rick


---Joe Lee said-----
If a CHAIN or SETxx operation is successful you know that you are not
at the end of the file, therefore %EOF will be off.
If a CHAIN or SETxx is unsuccessful, you do not know if you are at the
end of the file, therefore %EOF should not be changed.