Curious, I would have done:
LOOP WHILE READNEXT ID
READ RECORD FROM FILE,ID THEN
IF ((RECORD<FLD.1> EQ COND1) AND (RECORD<FLD.2> EQ COND2) AND
(RECORD<FLD.3> EQ COND3)) THEN
RECORD<FLD.4> = 'PROCESSED'
END
END
REPEAT
If I was worried about the IF statement getting too long, then I'd do this:
LOOP WHILE READNEXT ID
READ RECORD FROM FILE,ID THEN
ANS1 = (RECORD<FLD.1> EQ COND1)
ANS2 = (RECORD<FLD.2> EQ COND2)
ANS3 = (RECORD<FLD.3> EQ COND3)
IF (ANS1 AND ANS2 AND ANS3) THEN
RECORD<FLD.4> = 'PROCESSED'
END
END
REPEAT
While I'm on it, I probably wouldn't do the looping like that either, I'd
do this:
MORE = @TRUE
LOOP
READNEXT ID ELSE MORE = @FALSE
WHILE (MORE = @TRUE) DO
READ RECORD FROM FILE,ID THEN
IF ((RECORD<FLD.1> EQ COND1) AND (RECORD<FLD.2> EQ COND2) AND
(RECORD<FLD.3> EQ COND3)) THEN
RECORD<FLD.4> = 'PROCESSED'
END
END
REPEAT
Not that I actually think there's anything wrong with the original way it
was done...
>I use CONTINUE all the time when processing
>records that must meet multiple conditions in a loop. This way my code
doesnt
>look like 'flying geese'. I will write:
>
>LOOP WHILE READNEXT ID
> READ RECORD
>FROM FILE, ID ELSE CONTINUE
> IF RECORD<FLD.1> NE COND1 THEN CONTINUE
> IF
>RECORD<FLD.2> NE COND2 THEN CONTINUE
> IF RECORD<FLD.3> NE COND3 THEN
>CONTINUE
> RECORD<FLD.4> = 'PROCESSED'
> WRITE RECORD TO FILE, ID
>REPEAT
>instead of:
>
>LOOP WHILE READNEXT ID
> READ RECORD FROM FILE,ID THEN
> IF
>RECORD<FLD.1> EQ COND1 THEN
> IF RECORD<FLD.2> EQ COND2 THEN
>IF RECORD<FLD.3> EQ COND3 THEN
> RECORD<FLD.4> = 'PROCESSED'
>WRITE RECORD TO FILE, ID
> END
> END
> END
> END
>REPEAT
Dave Barrett,
Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company
-------
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
