On 2/10/2016 6:50 AM, Rob van der Heij wrote:
>> > That is, if you specify neither SELECT SECOND nor an EOF item, the
>> > run-out cycle is suppressed, even if PRINTONLY EOF is specified.
>> >
>> > One circumvention is to specify EOF without further specification items.
> It's not just EOF - happen
Agreed. As I said, these were off-the-cuff comments.
I wasn't thinking about porting between a real 407 and pipes. I was
thinking about keeping consistent with the model architecture being
emulated for the sake of the humans who have to understand 407E, a
non-trivial task.
"Simply resisting cha
> Two off-the-cuff comments:
>
> I'm really rusty on the interaction between the various 407E features. I
> think it's possible that this is consistent with the actual 407.
We don't have that many people exchange programs between their real 407 and
the CMS Pipelines code ;-)
> Second, there may
Rob;
Two off-the-cuff comments:
I'm really rusty on the interaction between the various 407E features. I
think it's possible that this is consistent with the actual 407.
Second, there may be breakage if you "fix" this. There may be pipes out
there that are using this behaviour, either intentio
> That is, if you specify neither SELECT SECOND nor an EOF item, the
> run-out cycle is suppressed, even if PRINTONLY EOF is specified.
>
> One circumvention is to specify EOF without further specification items.
It's not just EOF - happens with any break level. Just can't believe that I
have miss
That is, if you specify neither SELECT SECOND nor an EOF item, the
run-out cycle is suppressed, even if PRINTONLY EOF is specified.
One circumvention is to specify EOF without further specification items.
j.
