RE: Numeric DATE Fields vs DATE fieldtype

Paul,

Was that a half tongue-in-cheek remark?

I would agree from a purist stand point, but I think today, with 80+ meg of 
RAM on my laptop, and nearly that much on my AS/400, and 3.2 Gig on my 
laptop Vs 4 on my AS/400, that the days of worrying about the top-half of a 
byte are over. Now, don't include all that OLE crap that MS puts into it's 
application to make them run slower and blow up more. That's not my point. 
<g>

Bob Cozzi

On Friday, June 13, 1997 8:56 PM, PaulMmn [SMTP:PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com] 
wrote:
> I've always been of the opinion that -any- (packed) numeric field should 
be
> defined as an ODD number of digits.  You're going to get that extra half
> digit in the file anyway, so why not define it so you can use it should 
the
> program last 'till 9999?
>
> --Paul E Musselman
> PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com
>


Bob Cozzi
Bob@rpgdev.net
http://www.rpgdev.net


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *