I mentioned the HOLE stage because it was obvious the OP had not noticed that stage before (or overlooked it this time when trying to ignore excess lookup output this time), and ... 1) because by using HOLE it becomes clearer to future plumbers maintaining that particular pipe that the original author specifically did not intend to process output from those lookup output... 2) rather than having accidentally deleted needed lines which had handled such lookup output during an unfortunate late-night XEDIT session. :-)
Mike Walter Aon Service Corporation The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not necessarily those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Van der Heij Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 16:41 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Output to the bit bucket > Don't even need to do that. > > 'pipe (endchar ?)', > 'stem BST.', > '| l: lookup', > '?', > 'stem VSE.', > '| l:', > '?', > 'l:', > '| specs /T:/ 1 1-* next', > '| console' > And when your primary input does not have duplicates, you might also swap the two streams (ie look for the VSE records not in BST) stem VSE. | l: lookup ? stem BST. | l: | cons The reason you don't need the "hole" here is because "lookup" will continue to do it's work as long as relevant streams are connected. We could probably do a decent lecture on how eof propagates through the 12 streams (there's a picture in the book). --- Rob van der Heij z/VM Development, CMS Pipelines
