odd lookup problem

[Richard Kreiss]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Easton
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 9:55 PM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: odd lookup problem
> 
> On 11/8/10 9:13 PM, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> > On 11/8/2010 2:46 PM, Richard Kreiss wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Modified code which didn't work:
> >>
> >> 192  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:                                                                   ◄
> >>          Then: lv=master_code&"99"                                               ◄
> >> 193  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:                                                                   ◄
> >>          Then: lookup SALES = sales_journal  k=lv   i=C -nL                      ◄
> >> 194  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:         SALES                                                     ◄  This line shows false in
> debugger
> >>          Then:         GOTO next_w                                               ◄
> > [...]
> >> Working code:
> >>
> >> 192  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:
> >>          Then: lv=master_code&"99"
> >> 193  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:
> >>          Then: lookup SALES = sales_journal  k=lv   i=C -nL
> >> 194  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:         NOT sales
> >>          Then:         GOTO ask_sv
> >> 195  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> >>          ◄ If:         SALES and sales(4) = master_code
> >>          Then:         GOTO next_w
> > [...]
> >> In the above version, line 195 shows true.  This was tested before I added
> the check for the master_code in the sales journal as the next lowest value
> could be someone else's record when using next lowest.
> >>
> >> Master_code in in the form NNNNN-NNNN
> >>
> >> Again, my question is why is line 194, the not statement, necessary for
> line 195 to be true when it doesn't apply when doing an exact match lookup?
> > Assuming identical values for field "lv", and identical data and
> > index.C in the "sales_journal" file, there is no reason that "if:
> > sales" would be false in the first version and "if: not sales" would be false in
> the second version.
> >
> > Now, in the second version, the "if: not sales" is required because,
> > without it, the "if" on line 195 would error out if the lookup failed,
> > due to the reference to "sales(4)".  However, this is a separate
> > issue.  (Note, too, that in the second version, the test for sales on
> > line 195 is redundant, as it must be true if the line is reached.)
> >
> Amen.  But also, the latter part of the last question posed hints at an
> incorrect assumption- that the 'not' test doesn't apply for the particular
> lookup and that what is being performed is an exact-match lookup.  To me
> the 'not' test is always meaningful in some way for any kind of lookup, and I
> don't see an exact-match lookup anywhere here.
> 
> Bruce

The original posting had the lookup based on field 16 (master_code) using -nx.  If the if SALES failed, the program dropped through to the sales routine as I wanted. 

Richard