Re: DS argument list for i/o vs. listing the arguments at the i/o statement -- RPG400-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: DS argument list for i/o vs. listing the arguments at the i/o statement
From: Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:57:54 -0500
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l/>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Alan, you could always used fixed format and put the data structure name in the result field! Sorry, couldn't resist, since I just read the documentation again.

One nice feature of the %kds is you can specify how many of the key fields to use - more flexible and useful when many of them, as David suggests.

Vern

On 8/18/2021 10:52 AM, David Gibbs via RPG400-L wrote:

On 8/18/21 8:24 AM, Alan Cassidy wrote:

(1) chain %kds( CustkeysDS ) Custfile ;

--versus-

(2) chain ( CustType : CustNbr ) Custfile ;

IMO, it depends on how complex the files key fields are.

If there a lot of keys, a data structure makes sense.

If it's less than 3, individual fields are good.

david

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.