-v processing

[Dennis Malen]

I agree Ken.

There has to be something else in my processing which causes the first 
record to pass the select criteria.

What I am doing with my fix is assume that first record it pulls is 
incorrect which I confirmed by running the report without auto processing 
first which is always correct and then compare it to my running the same 
report with auto processing. So in essence by putting the lookup after the 
select it bypasses the first record. I agree it shouldn't have to do it.

There is one more part of the processing I need to experiment with before I 
list the entire processing.

Dennis Malen
516.479.5912
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
To: "Dennis Malen" <dmalen at malen.com>
Cc: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: -v processing


> Dennis Malen wrote:
>> Using Nancy's suggestion concerning the use of the automated index I have 
>> found the following:
>> When I use:
>>  ~ If:    ww="" and 3 lt dt
>>  Then: lookup -  k=dt   i=B -ng
>> ------   -   -   -   -   -   -
>>  ~ If: 3 ge dt and 3 le dy     '
>>  Then: select
>> ------   -   -   -   -   -   -
>> I get an additional record that does not meet my criteria. It is the 
>> first record that filepro sees that it seems to accept.
>
> That means you executed the SELECT on that record.
>
>> In order to fix the problem I reversed the process and used:
>>  ~ If: 3 ge dt and 3 le dy     '
>>  Then: select
>> ------   -   -   -   -   -   -
>>  ~ If:   ww="" and 3 lt dt
>>  Then: lookup -  k=dt   i=B -ng
>> ------   -   -   -   -   -   -
>>  This fixed the problem.
>
> I assume that your processing is longer than just these two lines. 
> Without seeing these lines in context, we can really only guess as to the 
> cause.
>
>> I am on 5.0.
>
> This method has worked as long as there has been a lookup dash, which was 
> probably sometime in the 1980's.
>
>> ANOTHER POINT:
>>
>> I did not have to put the -In on the menu line in order for the index to 
>> work.
>
> Then you're doing something that's not the "lookup-dash in sort/select 
> processing" method.
>
> Again, without seeing those two lines in context, we could only guess as 
> to what's really going on.
>
> -- 
> Kenneth Brody