Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- From: Robert <no@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:05:02 -0500
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:21:51 +0200, "Roger While" <simrw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Robert" <no@xxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nvtlf3hflf9ispjjcjmha203ml6fa8s7h2@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:55:59 +0200, "Roger While" <simrw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Not only that, a particular compiler implementation has it's
own INDEX definition which is somewhat difficult to ascertain.
(And which is not necessarily a C-5 item)
It's EASY to ascertain. Set a data item of type index to the
table-oriented index,
redefine as comp-5 and display.
Really ?
Ever heard about 64 bit index?
How do you redefine (compatibly) an index ?
01 an-index usage index.
01 an-iindex-redefined redefines an-index usage binary-double.
set an-index to table-index
display an-index-redefined
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- From: Robert Jones
- Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- References:
- Revised Index versus Subscript
- From: Roger While
- Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- From: Robert
- Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- From: Roger While
- Revised Index versus Subscript
- Prev by Date: Re: Iraq
- Next by Date: OT: Iraq
- Previous by thread: Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- Next by thread: Re: Revised Index versus Subscript
- Index(es):