Re: [Tiny-cobol-users] Qualified record key name.

[David E. <de...@us...>]

John Culleton wrote:

 > This is more of an annoyance than a major shortcoming.
 > However it would be helpful if the the RECORD KEY
 > clause in a SELECT statement allowed for a qualified
 > name.
 > The reason? Well I often do a MOVE CORRESPONDING for
 > reports etc.  Currently I have to give the key fields
 > in the reports different names and move the current
 > values individually.

I can understand your frustration.
I have looked at a fix to the grammar on several occasions, but 
unfortunately, there is no easy solution.

Specifically, RECORD KEY identifiers are not defined until later.
Due to the way TC parses the FILE-CONTROL grammar, a fix would require a 
major re-write of the grammar and logic.

Currently, I have no plants to add a fix for record key qualification.


 > I have decided that the Tcl/Tk interface is too much
 > work so I am reverting to a SCREEN SECTION.
 > There was mention some time back of some corrections
 > to the ACCEPT/DISPLAY that were authored by Rildo.
 > David Essex responded on 01/02/07.
 >
 > Did these ever get to the source of Tiny?

Just to clarify.
Rildo's changes were made to an old version of TC, and not to the CVS on 
SF. I then manually merged some of these changes to CVS on SF.

So to answer your question, yes, some of Rildo's changes did make it to 
the sources on SF.
To verify if Rildo's ACCEPT/DISPLAY changes made it, you will have to 
download and build the current CVS version of TC on SF.

Anyway, hope this helps.

Cheers