× 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.



I like that - it means no need to modify how varying fields work, and the modification is used in place, instead of in some H-spec that is easier to miss.

So Peter, where are you submitting this?

:)

On 2/23/2013 1:28 PM, Peter Dow wrote:
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


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.