RE: Index format problem

[James, Voyle E CTR (US)]

Jeff,

Thank you for the pointer. That lead me eventually to our first copy of 3.31 
(2006 ?).
Evidently I changed the library version of dsf with vi and did not make any 
notes.
I will flagellate myself with an old programmer's manual.

I installed 3.39 last summer, but we did not do production runs with it until 
now.
I have now changed our project copy of dsf which we "@Include".

Thank you very much for the help. 

Ed

Ed James, address@hidden 703-325-1583-voice 571-256-3314-fax
U. S. Army Information Technology Agency, Administration & Management
Systems and Database Administrator, TCS Contractor
Hoffman II 9N03-WS27, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0027


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Jeff Kingston
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:02 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Index format problem

James,

I'm not sure why the comma would ever have gone away.  A quick look
through file dsf shows it hard-wired into the system, at line 4603:

    else @Yield { @Body &"0.03fu" address@hidden ,} pgrange }

At this point, @Body stands for the index label, and pgrange stands
for the page number, or page number range, and there is a hard-wired
comma in between them.

I doubt if it would be fruitful to look into the history.  I would
start by getting rid of this comma and seeing what happens.  For
the longer term I could look at adding an @IndexSeparator option,
value , by default, so that those who don't want it can get rid
of it.

There are problems here merging multiple index entries with the
same labels, the coding is delicate and needs careful testing.
I think that is probably why it says "address@hidden ,}" rather than
the apparently simpler and equivalent ",".

I'll be away from tomorrow for a week.

Jeff


On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 12:19:17AM +0000, James, Voyle E CTR (US) wrote:
> Hello Lout Users,
> 
> We have just noticed a difference in our indexes from June 2010,
> March 2011, and January 2012...