Linda,
As has been my practice for some time, was silent on the original thread,
but I will warn you of the following:
EQ, NE, GT, GE, LT, LE are all listed as obsolete in the HTML on-line help
documentation. I would not use these any more, even though they are still
listed as valid in the HTML SYNTAX documentation for the IF...ENDIF Command.
I have always considered the period(.) to be required for any variable
used on the right side of a comparison. The HTML documentation concurs and
states that it is required for the IF...ENDIF command. I would review your
existing code and correct any instance where it is not present.
While I am sympathetic to the time you had to spend to change your code, I
agree with you, and believe that the released version is consistent and
correctly evaluating the comparisons.
Bill Perry - St. Louis
At 11:01 AM 7/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>David, Frank & Ben,
>Thanks for the responses.
>
>Ben, the code execution for = and EQ is the same as it was in prior
>versions of R:BASE. We considered changing our code to check for EQUAL
>TO or IN ('x','y','z') however, since our code that used the <>
>comparison normally involved program navigational statements as outlined
>below, changing to an EQ would make it harder to find the ENDIF since
>there would be several lines of application code contained within the IF
>/ ENDIF statement.
> IF __ <> __ THEN
> RETURN
> ENDIF
> --continue application code
>
>David, I believe the logic handling is now right for the EQNULL OFF
>setting. In all the analysis I did to determine the changes that were
>required to our old code I found that text variables and NULL
>comparisons are now handled the same way comparisons with DATE and
>INTEGER variables were handled in the past. I think the this change is
>good, I just wanted to let others who are running code that has evolved
>over the years that they could experience problems with their
>applications not performing as they had in the past.
>
>We have already changed all of our code (it only took three of us two
>days), and have been running 6.5++ for the past two days with no major
>glitches. We did find that code execution is a bit tighter, we
>identified a few of our program statements failed to contain quotes
>around a text value which ran fine prior to the upgrade. Again, I am
>not complaining I am just amazed that the code ever did run correctly!
>
>Frank, I do have one question, is the dot required in front of
>variables on the right of the comparison operator? It was my
>understanding that this was not required to be used in IF statements but
>you mentioned this requirement. Also, if this isn't required now, I am
>wondering if it will it be a future requirement at some time?
>
>Thanks for everyone's input.
>
>
>Linda Fisher
>Manager, Data Services
>CIMRO Quality Healthcare Solutions
>208 Metro Dr.
>Jefferson City, MO 65109
>Phone: 573-893-8001
>Fax: 573-893-7960
>
