change size of two fields without increasing size of file

[Dennis Malen]

JP,

You're smart enough to know the answer to that. There may be other concerns 
that someone on the list may have experienced that may have to be addressed 
either before or after the restructure. In this case none were identified. I 
am confident that I may proceed as suggested. That's what the list is for.

Hopefully others are not inhibited in asking questions only to be confronted 
as to why it was asked in the first place.

Dennis Malen
516.479.5912
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Pierre A. Radley" <appl at jpr.com>
To: "FilePro Mailing List" <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: change size of two fields without increasing size of file


> Dennis Malen propounded (on Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 07:06:55PM -0400):
>
> < top-posting reverted >
>
> | From: "Jean-Pierre A. Radley" <appl at jpr.com>
> | > Dennis Malen propounded (on Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:04:36PM -0400):
> | > | Assume the following:
> | > |
> | > | Field 7 is 20 digits.
> | > | Field 86 is 6 digits.
> | > |
> | > | I want to add 5 digits to field 7 and reduce field 86 to 1 digit.
> | > |
> | > | Can I go in and change the size and let it rip? Will all the other
> | > fields
> | > | remain intact?
> | >
> | > Dennis, do you ever try anything for yourself before asking us about 
> it?
> | >
> | > Clone the whole file and make the change on one of the copies.
> | >
> | > Or create a test file with, say, three fields, one of length 20, 
> another
> | > of length 6, and a third of any old length, populated by maybe five
> | > records, and see what happens.
> | >
> | > While you're at it, change the edits as well as the lengths and look 
> at
> | > what ensues.
> | >
> | > It should all be quite clear when you're done.
> | >
> | I have been doing this long enough not to rely on a small sampling to 
> test
> | and rely upon my hypothesis.
> |
> | That's what the list is for. Since this is a large and important file I
> | would find it most prudent to ask the list.
> |
> | You may choose to be more cavalier. Certainly that is your prerogative. 
> I
> | chose to make sure the odds are as much in my favor as possible.
> |
> | Your suggestions are noted and appreciated.
>
> Why would you suspect that restructuring would depend on the size of the
> file?
>
> It is far more prudent to have a good backup, or two good backups, than
> to trust this or any other list, however fabluous a list may happen to be.
>
> -- 
> JP
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list