Has the internal implementation of this changed, or is this still as horrifically inefficient as it was back in the Microdata days? Except in a condition where you were doing a READV from a file that was not otherwise read in a Basic program, this was always strongly discouraged - as I found out when I asked Jon Sisk about it at a convention, and he literally fell on the floor laughing that someone was actually using this syntax. At that time, Chandru Murthi got up and helped him answer (both were laughing) - this syntax actually did a file open and then a READV, so that if you use it for more than one field in a record, or for multiple reads on a file in a Basic program, the OPEN being repeated was a killer in terms of performance (our software vendor did both, constantly!)
I am surprised that no other responders raised the efficiency issue! Susan Lynch F.W. Davison ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: [U2] Translate question > I've always used the OCONV(ID,"TFILE;X;15;15") form for translates. What is > the difference between the first and second '15's. I've seen "X;;15" work and > "X;15" not work. > > Thanks in advance. > Mark Johnson > ------- > u2-users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
