Re: setll, reade question.

[Gqcy <gmufasa01@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Is that really what you want to do?

in this case, yes...
even though we are intending to read the same records within the inner 
loop, different calculations are taking place and there even is a 
condition (hold your hats people) where we want to exit both loops...






On 10/18/2012 1:39 PM, Briggs, Trevor (TBriggs2) wrote:
> As far as I am aware, you don't need to worry about the other key values
> in this instance.
>
> However, I'm a little concerned about your logic. It seems like you will
> read every record for an order from File2 for each and every record for
> that order that you read from File1. Is that really what you want to do?
>
> Trevor Briggs
> Analyst/Programmer
> Lincare, Inc.
> (727) 431-1246
> TBriggs2@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gqcy
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:29 PM
> To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: setll, reade question.
>
> we are having a debate here about files with composite keys, and how
> SETLL and READE will position...
>
> example:
> File 1 key:   Order#, Operation#
>
> File 2 key:  Order#, Sequence#
>
> however, when I code my loop, I want to read all file 1 records for that
>
> order, and within that loop I want to read all file 2 records.
>
> we have it coded as:
> <<<ORDER# is a field, not a KLIST>>>
>
> ORDER#     SETLL   File1
> ORDER#     READE   File1
> 	   DOU     %eof(FILE1)
> 	... ...
> ORDER#     SETLL   File2
> ORDER#     READE   FILE2
> 	   DOU     %eof(file2)
> 	... ...
> 	   ENDDO
> 	   ENDDO
> HERE IS OUR DEBATE POINT:
>
> some of us are remembering problems with not setting ALL KEY VALUES,
> because you may have problems with the remaining key fields not being
> set to *LOVAL...
> However, I seem to think that was only when you were using a KLIST or
> something like that...