[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

Title:	OLD ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference
Notice:	Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1
Moderator:	IOSG::PYE

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1992
Last Modified:	Tue Jan 23 1996
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	4343
Total number of notes:	18308

1340.0. "FOR FIRST bug for V3.0 for null key?" by SHALOT::LANPHEAR (Take the tide one wave at a time) Tue Sep 01 1992 21:20

    Hi,
    
      With ALL-IN-1 V2.4, if you enter a command like
    	FOR FIRST DSAB WITH .%KEY EQS #KEY DO GET .%WHOLE
    and #KEY happened to be null, it simply executes:
    	open                                         
    	get_by_key
    	locate
    	get_next
    but under V3.0, it operates differently:
    	rewind
    	get key: , kor: (etc)
    	status: rec not found
    	get by rse
    	status: rec not found
    	get next ...
    	get next ...
    and proceeds to read through the entire file...  Ouch!
    
    Is this the intended behavior, and if so, can anyone explain it?  If I
    specify EQS, it shouldn't perform a sequential search _after_ the get
    by key fails.  The file is a simple RMS file, with a single string key, 
    non segmented, and the FDL key matches the FMS screen key name.
    
    					Cheers, Dan'l

T.R Title User Personal
Name Date Lines

1340.1 Yup, it's changed SHALOT::NICODEM Avoid traffic; leave work at noon Thu Sep 03 1992 15:53 14

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1340.1	Yup, it's changed	SHALOT::NICODEM	Avoid traffic; leave work at noon	`Thu Sep 03 1992 15:53`	14
	As I'm sure you guessed, the difference between the two systems is at the code level. There have been some changes made to the parsing routines in V3.0 that could directly affect what you're describing. Some of the additional code was to provide for parsing of lexical functions, and improving performance. However, the basic difference is in the parsing of individual "tokens" in your FOR statement. (Routine OA$DBS_PARSE_TOKEN). There's an ever-so-slight difference in the handling of a null token, which may be what you're encoun- tering. Given that I'm so incredibly busy on other projects right now (such as cleaning out my office, printing out manuals, etc. 8^) ), I'm going to leave this to Richard or one of the others to address. I'd suggest you IPR it, Dan'l. F

	As I'm sure you guessed, the difference between the two systems is at the
code level.  There have been some changes made to the parsing routines in
V3.0 that could directly affect what you're describing.  Some of the additional
code was to provide for parsing of lexical functions, and improving performance.
However, the basic difference is in the parsing of individual "tokens" in your
FOR statement.  (Routine OA$DBS_PARSE_TOKEN).  There's an ever-so-slight
difference in the handling of a null token, which may be what you're encoun-
tering.

	Given that I'm so incredibly busy on other projects right now (such as
cleaning out my office, printing out manuals, etc.  8^)  ), I'm going to leave
this to Richard or one of the others to address.  I'd suggest you IPR it, Dan'l.

	F