×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Perhaps someone who has more RPG experience than me (30 years) can add to
the confusion.
The SETLL and READE (the combination of which, when using the same key field
or keylist, is the /same/ as a CHAIN operation) before the DELETE were made
redundant by the single RPG statement:
xxpaky delete pfhcm
which is the exact equivalent of writing:
xxpaky CHAIN pfhcm
if %found(SPBHCMP)
delete pfhcm
endif
I have used the single-line DELETE operation in several programs...
- sjl
"Scott Klement" wrote in message
news:mailman.15654.1323218291.2520.rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx...
hi John,
On 12/6/2011 6:04 PM, jmmckee flinthills.com wrote:
I have the ancient v4r2 documentation files on my pc. The way I read
it, delete with factor 1 searched for and deleted the record. That
record might, or might not be the same record currently in the buffer.
You're absolutely right. Not sure why SJL thinks that including factor1
on a delete wouldn't make any difference?
But including Factor1 on the delete opcode does require it to release
it's current record lock, search for the first record matching the given
key, lock it, and then delete it.
Thus, if you were using a "UNIQUE" key, it'd be very close to being the
same (but not quite the same, because it has to release and re-get the lock)
But, on a non-unique key they are VERY different. So, I'm completely
with you... you should not have specified a key there.
midrange.com
