> Given the obscurity of the control statements (quick tell me what > field is 1,4,CH) why not write the thing in a language
Clark, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The control statements for DFSORT are not obscure and they are on the same level as following the coding/syntax rules for a programming language. For example COBOL, you would follow all the rules governing it. So why not do the same for DFSORT? >> PL1 and COBOL both generate fairly efficient code and when > the tool becomes more than one off wonder, someone else can pick up > the program and have a fighting chance of understanding what was being > done. Aren't the programs depending on the input file attributes? For example a COBOL program written to handle a FB 80 byte file will NOT work with FB 100 byte file. You need to write another program to handle it. With DFSORT there is absolutely no change in the control cards for different LRECL as long as the key fields are the same. DFSORT has come a long way from being just a sort product. It can do a lot. Thanks, Kolusu DFSORT Development IBM Corporation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
