On 2021-01-29, at 11:32:46, John P. Hartmann wrote:
>
> In general, pipes are forgiving and accepts a wider gamut of options than the
> documentation specifies.
>
> The documentation is written to be comprehensible and flowing (in authors'
> argot), if it were to show all possible combinations
In general, pipes are forgiving and accepts a wider gamut of options
than the documentation specifies.
The documentation is written to be comprehensible and flowing (in
authors' argot), if it were to show all possible combinations of options
and what not, it would, certainly in the case of loo
I also tried a "lookup autoadd ceiling floor 1-* master".
Point 13 in the doc says these options are mutually exclusive, but pipe doesn't
reject it.
Case opened.
Le 29/01/2021 15:21, « CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List au nom de van
Sleeuwen, Berry » a écrit :
That’s why I gave my init
That’s why I gave my initial reaction. I looked at the documentation and
according to the diagram it looks like the keyword parameters should be before
the input range. I didn't see any remark that keywords can be used anywhere in
the command, though it also doesn't specifically state they are i
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 14:23, John P. Hartmann wrote:
> lookup floor 1
>
> I must have been busy at the time in 2003.
>
Probably in a hurry to finish it for my birthday ;-)
Be sure to retain the output at the end:
lookup MASTER DETAIL.
There is only one test case for each of CEILING/FLOOR. E.g.,
lookup floor 1
I must have been busy at the time in 2003.
On 1/29/21 13:53, Rob van der Heij wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 13:45, Alain Benvéniste wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 13:45, Alain Benvéniste wrote:
> Do I open a issue for that ?
>
If you don't, I will put it on the list and eventually roll it into a
future upgrade.
Sir Rob the Plumber
Do I open a issue for that ?
Le 29/01/2021 13:43, « CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List au nom de Rob van der
Heij » a écrit :
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 12:48, John P. Hartmann wrote:
> There is something wrong here. LOOR is not a valid range, so F should
> not be recognised as a abbr
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 12:48, John P. Hartmann wrote:
> There is something wrong here. LOOR is not a valid range, so F should
> not be recognised as a abbreviation of FIELD, but it certainly looks
> like that is what is happening.
>
It sure has bitten me before that LOOKUP was picky on the orde
There is something wrong here. LOOR is not a valid range, so F should
not be recognised as a abbreviation of FIELD, but it certainly looks
like that is what is happening.
On 1/29/21 12:35, Ronald van der Laan wrote:
Alain,
I guess that with the second field definition, the F from FLOOR is no
Alain,
I guess that with the second field definition, the F from FLOOR is not
interpreted as Field.
Op vr 29 jan. 2021 om 12:32 schreef Alain Benvéniste
> Hi Berry,
>
> I don't know..
>
> LOOKUP 1-* 1-* FLOOR works too
>
>
> Le 29/01/2021 12:18, « CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List au nom de van
Hi Berry,
I don't know..
LOOKUP 1-* 1-* FLOOR works too
Le 29/01/2021 12:18, « CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List au nom de van
Sleeuwen, Berry » a écrit :
Hi Alain,
Shouldn’t you specify the keyword FLOOR before the input range?
So " LOOKUP FLOOR 1-* " instead of " LOOKUP 1-* F
Hi Alain,
Shouldn’t you specify the keyword FLOOR before the input range?
So " LOOKUP FLOOR 1-* " instead of " LOOKUP 1-* FLOOR "
Met vriendelijke groet/With kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Berry van Sleeuwen
Flight Forum 3000 5657 EW Eindhoven
-Original Message-
From: CMSTSO Pipe
Hi,
"PIPE (ENDchar ?)",
"literal a",
"!01: LOOKUP 1-* ???",
"! cons",
"?",
"literal b",
"!01:",
"?",
"01:",
"! cons"
Lookup with autoadd or ceiling, it works.
With FLOOR I get :
FPLSPR054E Range "LOOR" not valid
FPLSCA003I ... Issued from stage 2 of pipeline 1
14 matches
Mail list logo
