Re: CPYFRMIMPF SQ99999 code 4 -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: CPYFRMIMPF SQ99999 code 4
From: Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:57:18 -0400
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

One of my big things against CPYFRMIMPF is the lack of granularity. In
basic batch programming you import what you can and put the rest into an
exception report. One of many reasons why I encourage others to use the
stream file APIs instead.

Others being:
Your roll your own will perform better than CPYFRMIMPF.
IBM had a history of breaking CPYFRMIMPF with every release upgrade. Some
might argue the earlier should have never worked but still frustrating as
...

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.