Re: setll, reade question.

By the way, a word of some caution, there is a subtle difference in the way the SETLL and READE works when you're using only one key, depending on whether you (1) define a KLIST with only one key in the list and use that KLIST, or (2) use the single key value as the key, not as a KLIST.

Don't throw things at me, but I don't remember what it was, but it got me once.

Alan



On 10/18/12 5:45 PM, Barbara Morris wrote:

On 2012/10/18 2:28 PM, Gqcy wrote:

...
some of us are remembering problems with not setting ALL KEY VALUES,
because you may have problems with the remaining key fields not being
set to *LOVAL...
However, I seem to think that was only when you were using a KLIST or
something like that...

I think it's not about whether you're using a KLIST, it's about whether
you're using an externally described file.

With an externally described file, you can use a subset of the keys, and
the other keys will not be considered. There's lots of ways to use a
subset of the keys. A KLIST with only some keys, %KDS, a list of keys in
free-form, or a single key as you've coded.

With a program described file, they didn't have the option of using a
subset of the keys, so they had to put meaningful values for all the
keys. I assume they would have defined the key as alpha, and used a data
structure for the key values, setting the unwanted keys to loval or
hival depending on the operation.