× 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.



Pretty sure *START was available back in v5...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Yeah, I wonder a little, too - now there is the use of *LOVAL, as well.
This sets each of the key fields to its respective *LOVAL, X‘99...9D’ for
numeric, basically, and blanks for alpha. Not used with RRNs, methinks.

*START was, so far as I know, a pretty late addition - came out at 7.1, I
believe. I don't recall anything about using a value for this, rather, that
the file is positioned "...to the beginning of the file...", with no regard
for actual values. Paraphrased is that, eh?


On 12/8/2015 11:02 AM, CRPence wrote:

On 08-Dec-2015 07:09 -0600, Vernon Hamberg wrote:

<<SNIP>> I tried this -

setll 0 filename;

Now %equal(filename) is, again, *OFF - there is
no record whose RRN = 0.

But %found(filename) is *OFF, which seems odd, because the following
description of SETLL is matched -

The SETLL operation positions a file at the next record
that has a key or relative record number that is greater
than or equal to the search argument

I also did this using fixed-format and checked the NR indicator,
which is *ON. Because the NR is *ON (%found() is *OFF), we are
positioned (see replies to my recent post) at end-of-file, so a READ
turns on EOF.

The doc says this - "If access is by relative record number,
search-arg must be an integer literal or a numeric field with zero
decimal positions." It doesn't say, for RRN, that the search-arg has
to be > 0.

I'm working on 7.1 of the OS.

Seems to me that there ARE records found when using 0 as the search
argument, so the NR indicator should be *OFF - is this a special
case?

Or have I missed something again?


Possibly, like with Command (CMD) Parameter (PARM) definitions, a
Special Value is implemented using the same Data Type as the argument. As
such, I wonder if the effect of using a zero-value matches the
special-value of *START; i.e. *START effects passing a zero-value to the
run-time I\O program. And if the effects match between use of zero and use
of *START, then is there perhaps mention [or allusion to] in the docs that
the use of *START does not effect the condition of /found=*on/ [as with
actual /counting/ integer specifications]? I do not ever recall testing
any effects from SETLL *START, instead, only testing the effects of the
READ or READE that follows that SETLL.


--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.



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.