Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:34:59 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Yes. Some idiot decided that listf should output different results in batch
vs. online. It's particularly offensive when you do a listf of an empty
fileset to a tempfile and your eof comes back greater than zero.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leonard S. Berkowitz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] Another difference between on-line and batch
If I perform a LISTF fileset,2 to a disk file in a session, on-line, the
first
file appears in record #6 while in a batch job it is record #7. The
difference
is that the batch version has a date and time stamp in the first record.
Here is
the batch version:
:LISTF [log in to unmask],2>$NEWPASS
:PRINT $OLDPASS;NUM;PAGE=0
1) MON, AUG 6, 2001, 4:10 PM
2) ACCOUNT= NETBASE GROUP= QUEUE
3)
4) FILENAME CODE ------------LOGICAL RECORD-----------
----SPACE----
5) SIZE TYP EOF LIMIT R/B SECTORS #X
MX
6)
7) IQ010007* 14331W VBM 60933 4103 1 459536 *
*
This bit me when I transfered a working command file that is executed only
on-line to a batch job.
===================
Leonard S. Berkowitz
Perot Health Care Systems
(Harvard Pilgrim Health Care account)
voice: 617-509-1212
fax: 617-509-3737
pager: 781-226-2431
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
|
|