RE: %editc with leading 0s and decimal

>  Hans said:
>
>  >Well, if %EDITW does what you want, then
>  >why not just use that?
>  >
>  >But if you want to avoid %EDITW, then
>  >you can always try:
>  >%xlate(' ':'0':%editc(num:'3'))
>
>  Which requires a V5 OS/400 release.  The request didn't mention them, but
>  %xlate doesn't handle negative numbers.  If, for instance the input number
>  was -12.34, you would probably use the L edit code, which would result in
>  00012.34-  If you use an L edit code on a positive number like 12.34 you
>  would get 00012.340, because of the trailing space where the sign would go.
>  Of course you could wrap that up in a test and use edit code 3 for positive
>  numbers and L for negative numbers, but why go through that?
>
>  Hans' comment about %editw makes sense to me.
>    --buck

We are on V5R1 and this particular case is by rule a positive number so it 
works; however, this is not always the case.  Usually
(not always) when we have a field that could be negative, they have a separate 
field for the sign (-,+).  The test for negative to
determine the sign field and then
%xlate(' ':'0':%editc(%abs(num):'3')) should handle that.  It's definitely food 
for thought.

Thanks,
Seth Shields
Julius Blum, Inc.
7733 Old Plank Rd.
Stanley, NC 28164