Re: %Len vs. %Size in %Replace

In this case, when dealing with %LEN(STR) and %SIZE(STR) where STR is a fixed length character variable, the BIF's should return the same value. One difference may be that %SIZE() provides a value known at compile time, which can be used during the relational diagnostics phase.

On a V5R2 machine, the first code fragment does indeed compile for me. Looking at the compiler code, I see there were some code changes in V4R4. So perhaps Mark is targetting a release prior to then?

Cheers! Hans


DeLong, Eric wrote:

Mark, the size of the field indicates its defined size (in bytes), but it
doesn't necessarily mean that the field holds that much data.  Varying
length character fields and double-byte-character-sets really depend on
interpreting the length of the character string, not the actual number of
bytes that was reserved by the compiler.
Eric DeLong
Sally Beauty Company
MIS-Project Manager (BSG)
940-898-7863 or ext. 1863

-----Original Message-----
From: M. Lazarus [mailto:mlazarus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:58 PM
To: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: %Len vs. %Size in %Replace

Why doesn't %Replace() accept the %Size BIF in the 4th parm?
This won't compile - it receives "RNF0384 The fourth parameter for %REPLACE is not valid."
ObjectName 10A
String 80A
C EVAL String = %Replace( ObjectName :
String :
%Scan( 'qqqqqqqqqq': String ) :
%Size( ObjectName ) )
This does compile:
C EVAL String = %Replace( ObjectName :
String :
%Scan( 'qqqqqqqqqq': String ) :
%Len( ObjectName ) )
-mark