RE: What bugs you about KLISTs in RPG IV?

[boldt@xxxxxxxxxx]

Thanks for your input on this issue!

Here's a bit more background:  We understand fully why people
want to be able to define KLISTs in D-Specs.   However, while
a KLIST does define a klist name, the key fields are somewhat
awkward on the D-Spec.  For example, although you can  define
fields on the KFLD opcode, you can also  code indexed arrays,
which are not allowed today in positions 7-21 of the D-Spec.

Someone raised the idea of a "KLIST Data Structure".  That is
an interesting idea which I'll pursue further.   But, I don't
think it would be able  to fully replace the functionality of
of the KLIST.

One person came close to another idea that we've been playing
with here in the lab.  As you know, there are rumors floating
around about a new free-format calc spec.  Let's assume for a
moment  that these rumors are true.  This would give new ways
to enhance old opcodes.  The main thing  that has bothered me
about KLISTs is that they are necessary at all! If we weren't
limited to 14 chars in Factor 1, we would be able to list the
keys directly in the CHAIN opcode.  Imagine for a moment:

     cf   chain (custno: acctno: date) mastfile

or even:

     cf  chain (prodno: 'X' + subcode(n+14)) mastfile

In other words, full expressions coded directly as key fields
for the keyed I/O operations!

So todays questions are:  Would you take advantage of this if
available?  Would you still use KLISTs?

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *