On 22 November 2012 19:08, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no SETBF. If a boolean result is needed a SETAF so > implemented that it returns only arithmetic 0|1 can, for example, be > used instead.
You are quite right, of course. The code I wrote supports SETCF only, and I did remember testing for and rejecting other calls, but indeed I have an exact message only for SETAF, and a catch-all one for other unknown or unexpected entry codes. A SETBF run according to the rules for SETAF and SETCF makes little sense, because it would accept only boolean inputs. Tony H.
