[Info-vax] CRTL and RMS vs SSIO

[Simon Clubley]

On 2021-10-06, Greg Tinkler <tinklerg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For this case, RMS really doesn't work at all well. Says why right
>>there in the name, too. Record management, not stream management. 
>
> Well yes and no.  If you think about it most Unix text IO is record, ie LF terminated, and binary is fixed records not necessarily the same length in the file.
>

How do you find byte 12,335,456 in a variable length RMS sequential file
without reading from the start of the file ?

That's why there are restrictions on RMS supported file formats in an
application in some cases.

>
> I always wondered why the CRTL did not have some smarts to present a VFC
> records as STMLF and vise-versa, effectively hiding the internal record
> structures.  This could be done via open using the VMS extension ?rfm=STMLF?
> which should be the default unless it is a binary file ?rfm=unf?.  If the file
> is VFC then CRTL could to the translation.  Wishful thinking.
>

This could not be the default. What if LF characters are part of the
existing data record itself ? You have just destroyed the meaning of
the file in that case.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.