Re: The delete opcode

[Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've always assumed that but have always been uneasy so I generally do 
as Tony does  -  belt *and* suspenders.

Long ago I learned that IBM usually meant exactly what they say; so 
there has always been an uneasiness in the back of my mind about it.



mlazarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Booth,
>
>  I *think* that the manual is incorrect.  
>
> "... If a search argument (search-arg) is specified, the DELETE 
> operation deletes the current record (the last record retrieved). "
>
>  should read:
>
> "... If a search argument (search-arg) is NOT specified, the DELETE 
> operation deletes the current record (the last record retrieved). "
>
>  If it IS specified then it should work like a CHAIN/DELETE combo.
>
>  -mark 
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Booth Martin booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:08:10 -0500
> To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: The delete opcode
>
>
> Am I reading this wrong? From the RPG manual:
>
> "... If a search argument (search-arg) is specified, the DELETE 
> operation deletes the current record (the last record retrieved). The 
> record must have been locked by a previous input operation (for example, 
> CHAIN or READ). ..."
>
> I can not write a line of code like this and expect the record to be 
> deleted unless I chain(or some-such) to it first?
>
>   C  Key     delete  filename
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gou7x
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .