Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- From: "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:26:35 -0700
And, going back to the original message, which said in part "We agree with
the PC version [which gave the I/O status value of "23"] and have asked for
a mainframe output to show this working [giving an I/O status value of
"00"]": I think it's the PC version (compiler and runtime) whose behavior
is in question here (presuming both claim compliance with ANSI X3.23-1985 or
later), not the "mainframe" compiler and runtime.
-Chuck Stevens
<cblkid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1119986444.820310.316990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Chuck,
>
> Thank you! You hit it right on the head.
>
> My apologies for not clarifying the actual values entered as docdw
> asked for. Yes the 17 characters entered were present on the file. The
> START command is apparently the issue as it appears to be doing a
> comparison on the full key and not the first 17 characters, not
> following the '85 standard. If I supply a complete and valid key the
> record is found and status is '00'.
>
> So, based on the reply from Chuck it appears to be an issue with the
> compiler and runtime.
>
> Thank you to all who replied!
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- References:
- START KEY EQUAL TO
- From: cblkid
- Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- From: Chuck Stevens
- Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- From: cblkid
- START KEY EQUAL TO
- Prev by Date: Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- Next by Date: Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- Previous by thread: Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- Next by thread: Re: START KEY EQUAL TO
- Index(es):