Huh? Beaten by seconds! And didn't even think of AFTER... I feel eliminated
like Croatia form the World Cup... And we didn't even play with the Dutch
masters  :-)


On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Gentry, Steve <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, uhm, AFTER would be cheating (and will work in this case, thanks.)
> What happened to "work harder not smarter"  (from a Dilbert cartoon).
> . . . and . . .
> Brute force and awkwardness  (college professor).
> Sincerely, thanks,
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 10:44 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: need a SPECS guru
>
> You seem to be looking for PICK - eg   pick w8 >> ,20140225,
>
> The classic approach would be to inject a dummy record in the stream, sort
> on date, and ignore all records before the dummy.
>
> PS It would be cheating to remind you of the AFTER option on LISTFILE ;-)
>
>
> On 27 June 2014 16:14, Gentry, Steve <[email protected]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > In a  CMS environment, I have a list of files, created by LISTFILE.
> > The format of the file_type, in this list, will be DATE('S')  yyyymmdd
> > I want to take a predetermined date, already in DATE('S') format, and
> > compare it to the above mentioned file_type.  If the file type date is
> > less than or equal to the predetermined date  I want to ignore it.  Or
> > if the file type date is greater than the predetermined date, I want to
> pass it on
> > to the next stage.   I was hoping for a PIPE stage that would do this
> type
> > of logical compare but I didn't find one, or at least one with an
> > obvious name/function.  If there is a stage, please let me know.
> > However, if there isn't a stage to do this, I think I'll have to do this
> with a SPEC stage.
> >  While I've gotten better at writing pipe code, the SPEC stage is
> > still a challenge for me and hence the need for a SPECS guru.
> > Could someone help with this SPECs stage?
> > Thanks,
> > Steve
> >
>

Reply via email to