John; My first reaction would have been to say definitely yes. I've always found that behavior an unintuitive gotcha for which I could get burnt without warning. I've learned to be more careful, but I still get zapped every once in a while. Teams might be more impacted. (Why does this work here and not there? Why did Sam do that?) Sometimes the workaround is unclean.
On further thought, however, it might create real headaches for the unaware who are switching between structure and non-structure methods. The cure could be worst than the disease. (What happens if you define a 407E break field past the end of the record? Am very busy right now, otherwise I'd try it first.) Have you considered a keyword to switch this behavior on and off, either for the entire specs stage, or from a given point forward? I think this would be the safest. It would preserve existing functionality and compatibility while providing for more intuitive behavior and a simpler workaround. Just my 2 cents. Accept, reject or modify as you see fit. - Hobart -----Original Message----- From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hartmann Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [CMS-PIPELINES] Null input fields with structured output. The SPEC reference states: "A data field is suppressed if it refers to an input range that is not present in the record and the output placement does not specify an explicit length for the output field; the item is then ignored." When the output placement is a member of a structure it will have a length and thus such a specification item will never be ignored. But is this desirable? j.
