Re: Matching Records

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Booth,

 Assuming that FILE1DS and FILE2DS are DS's and each contains the 
corresponding four subfields mentioned, then yes, that should be 
equivalent.  I was responding directly to the logic error the Joep had posted.

 But if the DS's mentioned above are set up, then the original 
statement can be modified:

     IF Not *inmr or (*in02 and FILE1DS <> FILE2DS);

 So that form would be more concise and IMHO easier to read.

 -mark


At 11/7/07 12:14 PM, you wrote:
> Why not select?
>
> select
> when   *INMR and FILE1DS = FILE2DS
> * (do nothing)
> when   *INMR
> write  MR_Diffs
> when   *IN01
> write  NMR_01
> when   *IN02
> write  NMR_02
> endsl
>
> Isn't that about all of the choices that there are?
>
>
> M. Lazarus wrote:
> > Joep,
> >
> >   You're missing another set of parentheses:
> >
> >          if not *inmr or
> >            (*in02 and ((file1data1 <> file2data1) or
> >                        (file1data2 <> file2data2) or
> >                        (file1data3 <> file2data3) or
> >                        (file1data4 <> file2data4)));
> >
> >   -mark
> >
> > At 11/7/07 10:50 AM, you wrote:
> >
> >>> From: Joep Beckeringh
> >>>
> >>> Actually it should be:
> >>>
> >>>        if not *inmr or
> >>>          (*in02 and (file1data1 <> file2data1) or
> >>>                     (file1data2 <> file2data2) or
> >>>                     (file1data3 <> file2data3) or
> >>>                     (file1data4 <> file2data4));
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise your program will fire for every record in the primary file.
> >>>
> >> Yup, you're right Joep.  It has been a while <sheepish 
> grin>.  At 01NMR time
> >> the secondary file hasn't been read yet.  I don't know what I 
> was thinking.
> >> So you can only check for differences on the secondary record.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> In your example, which is very concise, I remember
> >>> that you need to specify end of file processing on
> >>> both the primary and secondary files or the program
> >>> will end once all records are read from the primary
> >>> file regardless if more records remain in the
> >>> secondary file.  So the file spec would be IPE for the
> >>> primary and ISE for the secondary.  Maybe someone else
> >>> remembers this subtlety or has additional light to
> >>> shine on the topic.
> >>>
> >> As Joep pointed out, when all the EOF fields are blank, all records are
> >> processed.  I tested it with my little program after adding data 
> to the file
> >> (and realizing that Joep was dead-on about adding the *IN02 
> qualification).
> >>
> >> Joe