From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e47ad8d460f46b8,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jmoor@my-deja.com
Subject: Extracting Fields in Files
Date: 2000/01/12
Message-ID: <85hu94$tk3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 571602489
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 DCC-PROXY,
 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.49.118.18
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 12 13:06:52 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjmoor
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt)
Date: 2000-01-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I am reading a file containing variable length records, the maximum
size being 250 bytes and the minimum size 5 bytes.

I read each record by doing the following:

While not end_of_file(tip0125) loop
  Get_line (tip0125,rec01,rec01_length);
  .
  .

                METHOD 1
I break the individual fields up by doing the following:

Command_code := rec01(073..077);
Date_entered := rec01(001..008);
.
.
.

                METHOD 2
After writing the program, I bought an Ada book (Bad timing. I should
have bought the book before writing the program) that said that the
individual fields should be broken up by using the "text_io.get" on
each field.


Is it inherently wrong to use METHOD 1 to break up individual fields
instead of METHOD 2. I am experiencing problems with ignoring some
records, but I would doubt that METHOD 1 is the culprit.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.