Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] 1.1.11/1F available.

2009-01-08 Thread John P. Hartmann
Glenn, What you describe is the implied delimited string. I am introducing the keyword STRING to indicate that the following is to be taken as a delimited string, no matter what, just like other stages that support STRING. pipe literal | spec string 1-1 1 | cons - Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:17:37 Ye

Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Lookup

2009-01-08 Thread John P. Hartmann
Richard. Doesen't the tertiary output from Lookup contain what you desire? [Master records that are not matched by a detail.] j. 2009/1/8 Schuh, Richard : > I am trying to find a pipe solution to the following problem: > > I have 2 files that have tags in them. I want to identify which tags a

Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] 1.1.11/1F available.

2009-01-08 Thread Glenn Knickerbocker
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:20:10 +0100, John wrote: >pipe literal | spec string 1-1 1 | cons >- This works as far back as z/VM 4.4.0 (and did any of us ever notice?). That's why I'm confused about what you're "introducing" now. >Yes, |specs #1:=1 print #1| is what I have in mind. If you're telling >m

Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Lookup

2009-01-08 Thread Schuh, Richard
John, Not quite. I need something more like 1. Duplicate masters are not discarded. 2. Whenever a detail matches a master, one of the matching master records is deleted from the reference. That would result in a reference that contained unmatched instances of each master. For example, if there w

Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Lookup

2009-01-08 Thread Kris Buelens
What about putting a sequence number before the keys before sending them to LOOKUP? 2009/1/8 Schuh, Richard > John, > > Not quite. I need something more like > > 1. Duplicate masters are not discarded. > 2. Whenever a detail matches a master, one of the matching master > records is deleted from

Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Lookup

2009-01-08 Thread Schuh, Richard
Is there a good way to do that without a "sort | unique count" in both streams? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > [mailto:cms-pipeli...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kris Buelens > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:36 AM > To: CMS-

Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Lookup

2009-01-08 Thread Glenn Knickerbocker
"Schuh, Richard" wrote: > > What about putting a sequence number before the keys before > > sending them to LOOKUP? > Is there a good way to do that without a "sort | unique count" in both > streams? Took all day, but it finally occurred to me: LOOKUP AUTOADD TRACKCOUNT. If the key is the whole