It's already a subroutine. It's the tests that are the problem. If I used an OPEN and a READ I wouldn't have an issue. It's trying to get TRANS to be all it can be that is the problem. I might also consider passing the one file's FCB into the subroutine to avoid an OPEN, but I wanted to make this subroutine something that could be called from multiple programs that may or may not have that file open...
But since a TRANS is about as intensive as an OPEN/READ it probably wouldn't be any difference is processing time. George > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:u2-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Israel, John R. > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:15 AM > To: 'U2 Users List' > Subject: Re: [U2] Stumped with TRANS... > > Instead of a TRANS with various conditions, call a subroutine that has > all the tests you need. > > > John Israel > Senior Programmer/Analyst > Dayton Superior Corporation > 1125 Byers Road > Miamisburg, OHÂ 45342 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:u2-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of George Gallen > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:14 AM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Stumped with TRANS... > > hmmm. might work. I'll have to try it just to see, but I'll > most likely go with switching field orders, since I'd rather > not do a double TRANS, in case the file I'm scanning gets > a lot bigger, then processing time will be significant. > > Thanks > > George > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:u2-users- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Woodward > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 7:22 PM > > To: U2 Users List > > Subject: Re: [U2] Stumped with TRANS... > > > > Can you chain two TRANS functions and compare the results? If you > use > > "C" the first time and "X" the second time then you would be able to > > know if there is no record when the two results are different. If > the > > record doesn't exist, you would only have @ID in the first result but > > the second result would be blank. If the record does exist and the > > field you are getting is the key value, then the first AND second > > results would be equal, both containing @ID. > > > > BobW > > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
