Re: Chain vs SetLL/ReadE

You sort of already have that.

FMYFILE IF E K DISK INFDS(infdsMyFile)

D infdsMyFile DS qualified
D status *STATUS

D FOUND C const(0)

/free
setll (myKey) myFile;
reade (myKey) myFile;
dow infdsMyFile.status = FOUND;
do stuff...
reade (myKey) myFile;
enddo
/end-free


The reason I ask for bif is because opcode cannot return a value. So,
if bif were existed, the above code would look like below:

FMYFILE IF E K DISK

D FOUND C const(0)

/free

%setll(myKey :myFile);
dow %reade(myKey :myFile) = FOUND; //no double reade needed
do stuff...
Enddo

/end-free



"Carel Teijgeler" <coteijgeler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:<mailman.7902.1220376397.2545.rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>...

Why should every opcode be BIFFed?

%eof and %found are not BIFs, they are indicators with the naming
comvention of a BIF.

I would prefer the eof/found status of a record was part of the INFDS,
which mean an INFDS for each file required. With TEMPLATE, LIKEDS and
QUALIFIED it is easier to have DSes with the same subfield structure.

The

indicators %eof/%found can then be made obsolete.

With regards, Carel Teijgeler

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 2-9-2008 at 11:13 Lim Hock-Chai wrote:

Barbara,
For the sake of getting us out of all these misery, can't you just

create

some new bifs like %chain, %read, %reade... that return %status

as return code? :).

<vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Thanks - that is the other form of the READx loop - I guess I don't

care

for it, as you have 2 comparisons for every time through instead of

1 - I think!! Might get optimized away in any case, but we don't know

that.