RE: Old-timer's disease moment

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

In the past the debate has ended up like this:
If you expect 10% or fewer errors then use the Monitor.  After all, why 
waste the cycles checking each date for errors?
However, if you expect higher errors then you should use the TEST 
function.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the TEST function.  But that's just bias from 
when I tried test(n) on a string something like '123F' and the test says 
that is ok.  It may be, (considering how sign is stored), but I sure don't 
expect my users to enter something like that and call it valid.

Some might also suggest changing the 
       Monitor;
         RealDateField=%date(NumberDateField);
         On-Error;
           RealDateField=FakeValue;
       ENDMON;
to
       Monitor;
         RealDateField=%date(NumberDateField);
         On-Error;
           RealDateField=FakeValue;
           ClearBooBooFromJobLog();  // remove error message from joblog.
       ENDMON;

And that's not a bad idea.  However, if you don't 
 ...
 MONMSG CPF9801 EXEC(DO) /* Object does not exist */
   /* Remove message from cluttering joblog */
   RCVMSG MSGTYPE(*NEXT) MSGKEY(*TOP) RMV(*YES) KEYVAR(&KEYVAR) +
          MSGDTA(&DATA) MSGID(&MSGID)
 EndDo
to clear up joblog clutter from your CL then why should you care about 
your RPG?  Volume of data?

Rob Berendt