Message 192 gives the game away. Wouldn't you say that EOF is a break?
On 09/05/2013 09:05 PM, Michael Harding wrote:
This:
'|Spec printonly EOF a: w3 . set #0+=1',
'if a#1 then',
'b: substr 1.8 of w2 . c: substr 9.6 of w2 .',
'set (#1:=a;#2:=b;#3:=c) fi',
'eof print #0
Well, I thought printonly eof was a stage option rather than a break, and
the latter eof following the if clause sets the break action. There
aren't any field definitions after that one.
Too, from what you're saying it should complain about the definition of a:,
when instead it seems to be
Mike, you are right right, I was a tad too fast off the mark.
The problem is at the end of the 192 string with b:. You can refer to
field identifiers in conditional parts, but you cannot define them. I
guess I should have reworded message 1037 or at least updated the help
file, but such is
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Michael Harding mhard...@us.ibm.comwrote:
Seems unnecessarily tortuous to me, but then I'm not programming it
And, I would swear I've used similar code before, deciding how to parse a
record depending on the value of a fixed field.
I.e.... a: w1 . if
