• Subject: Re: Build Timestamp?
  • From: Dave Mahadevan <mahadevan@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:59:18 -0400
  • Organization: Stoner and Associates

Kahn, David wrote:

> Francis Lapeyre (flapeyre@COMMUNIQUE.NET) wrote:
> >Kahn, David wrote:
> >>
> >> The TIME opcode requires a numeric result field. Crazy though it
> >> sounds
> >> you cannot TIME straight into a timestamp field.
> >
> >TIME to a timestamp field works, all right, but only if you have
> V3R7.
> Thanks for the information, Francis. We're still stuck on V3R2 for the
> time being. It does seem as though a timestamp should be a natural
> target for TIME - saves all that messing around. Another
> incompatibility
> between V3R2 and V3R7. Don't tell Dave M .  :-)

I heard that.   What bothers  me is 60% of the machines are on V3R1/V3R2
and IBM does not care.  Maybe they are taking a leaf from Microsoft.

BTW, David G, I have a procedure which calls the ILE CEELOCT routine to
return the time stamp.  Since you cant get microseconds, I optionally
set the microseconds field to show elapsed time from the last call.  The
usage is  EVAL  TIMES = P_TIMESTMP.  Let me know if you want me to post
the code.

Thank You.


Dave Mahadevan.. mailto:mahadevan@fuse.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

This thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].