Comment controlled by variables

K1 =COMMENT/YESNO,NO,FULL SCREEN=NO,AUTO-CONTINUE=NO,OVC=NO,
Has any allowance been made for reporting purposes?
ASSIGN/K2=K1.INPUTVALUE
IF/K2==2
ASSIGN/TOGGLE=$$ (UNSURE IF THIS IS CORRECT FORMAT, JUST NEED COMMENT TYPE THAT DOESNT REPORT)
END_IF/
IF/K2==1
ASSIGN/TOGGLE=REPT
END_IF/
COMMENT/TOGGLE, (COMMENT TYPE WILL BE VARIABLE-TOGGLE)
******************************************
** REPORTING HAS ALLOWED FOR TREATMENTS **
******************************************

Did this from memory, as I dont have an available PC-DMIS license to check, may need some tweaking, but the idea is to just use TOGGLE variable to switch the comment type from "REPT" to another type that does not show up. Let me know if that works or not

So the toggle doesnt seem to exist from what i can see and when i tried to assign the toggle to $$ as per line 5 it came up red showing incorrect syntax

So for the toggle, its just an assigned variable, that I like to label as "TOGGLE" instead of the usual V1 or other.

as far as the syntax for other comment type, i'm not sure, but can check on that soon and get back to you.

K1 =COMMENT/YESNO,NO,FULL SCREEN=NO,AUTO-CONTINUE=NO,OVC=NO,
Has any allowance been made for reporting purposes?
ASSIGN/K2=K1.INPUTVALUE
IF/K2==2
ASSIGN/TOGGLE="$$"
END_IF/
IF/K2==1
ASSIGN/TOGGLE="REPT"
END_IF/
COMMENT/TOGGLE,
******************************************
** REPORTING HAS ALLOWED FOR TREATMENTS **
******************************************

Fantastic this is perfect thank you

Awesome! Happy to help, and glad that worked for you!

Secondary thought, but not necessary, instead of the "ASSIGN/K2=K1.INPUTVALUE", you can use the IF statements to handle this by using "IF/K1.INPUTVALUE==2" and later "IF/K1.INPUTVALUE==1". This should work just the same, and requires less actual coding, though in this case only removes one line of coding. Something to think about for future programming, just to be a bit more efficient and less coding to handle should the need arise to change anything in the future.

Hope I explained that well! In your case though, I wouldn't worry about going back to change this, since its only the one extra line, just wanted to provide a more efficient approach, that could help with similar cases.