Good Heavens, Mark, I think you kind of missed the tone of my post. :-) I see you sent it just before midnight, you must have been tired.
I suppose after rereading my post in the light of a new day, you will see that I understand why the code I copied from a prior post was poorly written. (Don't believe in your wildest dreams, I would have written something like that.) And, as you are rereading my posting, you will also come to understand that the second proc was a joke based upon the poor understanding of procs by so many programmers. If you got the joke, you must understand something about proc.
After 21 years in PICK, I know PQ procs and how to use them to best advantage. I have to admit PQN procs I have to look up syntax. I must admit, as much as I like procs, I don't use them much anymore.
Now if only UniData would support F-correlatives... (Mark, that is another joke. :-) )
Take care,
Bruce M Neylon
Health Care Management Group
| "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/04/2004 11:52 PM
|
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: Re: [UD] Determining if list exists |
Your proc example doesn't need the P after the STON in line 3. The reasons you have the STON, H< and P(x) on lines 7,8,9 is twofold. The first reason is that in a typical GET-LIST/LIST pairing, your list statement could exceed the maximum size of the Secondary Output buffer (STON without the H< and P). That required Secondary Output buffer extensions of H<< which needed to be properly placed and when changes were made, you had to recalculate where they belonged.
Using the STON, H<, P then the HLIST put the entire LIST statement into the Primary Output buffer which is seemingly limitless. Like a paragraph, you were executing 2 consecutive statements.
The downside is that if the preceeding SELECT doesn't yield any items or the GET-LIST comes up empty, the HLIST will process your report against the entire file. Thus the IF E=401 concept was introduced to validate the active list.
That psycho couldn't possibly have programmed that on purpose. I've seen some excessive use of STOFF/STON pairs, ie STOFF after a P when it comes automatically. (Like RI then S1. Duh, RI implies S1). The fact that the psycho alternated their two sentence's words in consecutive statements was either to hide some code or fool around.
my 1 cent
-- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
