Re: Multi- Occurrence Data Structure

Lim Hock-Chai wrote:

5. RE: Multi- Occurrence Data Structure (Lim Hock-Chai)

Yes, RPG cycle is part of RPG. But not many RPG folks have good
understanding of what it does. If this is the case, then my next
question would be: Is it really that hard to create a loop without using
rpg Cycle? If the answer is no, it is not hard to do, then why would
you want to use a technology that most RPG programmers have abandoned.
If your argument is about matching record, select record, look ahead...
features in RPG cycle, Well, if you read the recent question that
posted about using RPG cycle to do record matching, you would know that
it took several tries from some of those experts to get it right. Some
even admitted that he has to reference the reference book to finally got
it. Then, the same question: is it really that hard to do record
matching, look ahead... without using RPG cycle?

The reference to the recent 'Matching Records' thread is a good one, and it's hard to respond to directly.

But perhaps there's an indirect response that could be instructive -- Search the archives for almost _any_ subject within RPG to see how many tries it takes to get it right, including replies where a misunderstanding of a manual was admitted.

How many tries did it take before the recent question about setting 6-digit decimal fields with a current date value was properly answered?
How many times has the use of *BNDDIR QC2LE been explained by Scott?
How many times does it take to get a proper answer for displaying multiple windows without losing the underlying format?
How many ways are there to use SETLL/READE in a loop, and should %FOUND or %EOF be used?
What's the correct usage of %KDS() when using a partial key list?

Those are areas that have been discussed multiple times in recent years, yet inconsistencies still show up in posts from multiple experts. It's not because they're difficult or obscure; it's because programming involves inhuman precision and accuracy. We simply don't commit manuals to memory (unless you have a cybernetic brain that's tuned for it like Scott's, which isn't intended as a negative statement).

I'm not sure it's fair to count responses to a subject that hasn't had much discussion in the past ten years. I'm not even sure that the number of MR posts was more than some of the others.

Tom Liotta