× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Richard B Baird wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware of the t'00.00.00' syntax.  what is the definition of your
> time field?  is it a time data type?
> 
> This won't be a problem in my case, but what happens if the difference
> between the two time stamps is more than 24 hours?  will it bomb, or just
> roll over to 00.00.01 ?
> 

For that to work, the time field would have to be a time type.  I can't
remember if you get roll-over or overflow if you add too many seconds to
a time.  I guess either would be bad, so if the difference *could* be
more than 24 hours, you'd have to use the division method.  Although ...
if the difference was be guaranteed to be less than 29 days, you could
add the seconds to a loval timestamp and get an answer in
days-hours-minutes-seconds.

d dayHrMinSec      s        11a
    evalr dayHrMinSec = %char(z'0001-01-01-00.00.00' +
%seconds(%diff(ts1:ts2:*seconds)));

Snicker.

To get rid of the icky unbalanced separators:

    evalr dayHrMinSec = %xlate('-':'.':%char(z'0001-01-01-00.00.00' +
%seconds(%diff(ts1:ts2:*seconds)));

Double snicker.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.