Re: simple problem with string handling

How about instead of OriginalDS = CopyDS, we have something like
OriginalDS corr = CopyDS, which would compare the individual fields of
the data structures having the same name? Or there could be something
more obscure like OriginalDS == CopyDS that would have the same meaning.

--
*Peter Dow* /
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 793-9050
petercdow@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:petercdow@xxxxxxxxx>
pdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/

On 2/23/2013 9:58 AM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:

Hi John

I believe I also understand what a DS is, so we don't disagree there, so
far as I can tell.

I think the only thing we disagree on is whether the question should be
asked at all. I think it wouldn't hurt, you seem to discourage even
asking IBM, if I read you rightly.

So we shall have to agree to disagree. I don't know if the OP will take
any steps to ask, we shall see.

Meanwhile, a discussion of Open Access is in the immediate offing! Too
much fun!

Regards
Vern

On 2/23/2013 11:45 AM, John Yeung wrote:

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Vernon Hamberg
<vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Different folks, different strokes - comparing DS' is often recommended,
even in these lists. This behavior makes that not so useful.

Of course comparing data structures is often recommended. It's both
convenient and efficient. I certainly recommend comparing them. But
you have to understand what a data structure *is* to be able to use
them wisely and interpret the results correctly.

The behavior under discussion isn't a shortcoming of data structures
so much as it's an inherent property of what data structures are.

It's like we keep telling folks who insist that lack of arrival
sequence is somehow a shortcoming of SQL: No, it's not, it's just a
consequence of what SQL is.

John