Like your second solution....just trying to wrap my head around it. 

Frank M. Ramaekers Jr.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List [mailto:CMS-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Glenn Knickerbocker
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Placeholder for removed lines
> 
> On 4/11/2013 12:56 PM, Frank M. Ramaekers wrote:
> > I'd like to change it so it shows the omitted lines (minimally):
> >
> > Slot  Vol-ID  Rdev  Type   Status                  SSIOwner SysOwner
> >    1  M01RES  0705  Own    Online and attached     -------- --------
> >    -
> >    5  VMCOM1  0701  Own    Online and attached     -------- --------
> 
> Since you know the records you keep will be unique, you can blank out the
> ones you omit and then use UNIQUE to skip over the duplicates:
> 
>   "PIPE (endchar ?)",
>     "|  LITERAL QUERY CPOWN",
>     "|  CP",
>     "| used: PICK SUBSTR 1.6 OF W2 \== /------/",
>     "| all: faninany",
>     "|  unique first",
>     "|  CONSOLE",
>     "? used:",
>     "|  specs /-/ 1",
>     "| all:"
> 
> > Or ideally:
> >
> > Slot  Vol-ID  Rdev  Type   Status                  SSIOwner SysOwner
> >    1  M01RES  0705  Own    Online and attached     -------- --------
> >   2 -  4 omitted
> >    5  VMCOM1  0701  Own    Online and attached     -------- --------
> 
> That's a tougher juggling act.  You need the first of each group of retained
> records to trigger output of each group of omitted ones.  My trick for this 
> is to
> use CHOP 0 to generate a record before each input
> record:
> 
>   "PIPE (end ?)",
>     "  cp QUERY CPOWN",
>     "| used: pick substr 1.6 of w2 ¬== /------/",
>     "| before: chop 0",
>     "| empty: faninany",
>     "| joincont leading / /",
>     "| locate",
>     "| specs w1 1.3 right /-/ n w-1 n.3 right / omitted/ n",
>     "| all: faninany",
>     "| cons",
>     "? used:",
>     "| chop 4",
>     "| empty:",
>     "? before:",
>     "| all:"
> 
> You could also do the whole thing in one complicated SPECS using named
> fields and IF, but that wouldn't accommodate cases where you might have
> other processing to do on the lines you're grouping together.
> 
> ¬R

_____________________________________________________
This message contains information which is privileged and confidential and is 
solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any 
review, disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly 
prohibited. If you have
received this in error, please destroy it immediately and notify us at 
[email protected].

Reply via email to