RE: CL Field Size Workaround

["Jerry C. Adams" <midrange@xxxxxxxx>]

That was going to be my next step, Paul, if there isn't an option similar to
GENLVL that I am missing.

Jerry C. Adams
IBM i Programmer/Analyst
That's part of American greatness, is discrimination.  Yes, sir.
Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity. - Lester
Maddox
--
A&K Wholesale
Murfreesboro, TN
615-867-5070


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Morgan, Paul
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:12 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: CL Field Size Workaround

Jerry,

Have you considered using TYPE(*MBRLIST) instead?  It's a similar list but
with a simpler record format.

Paul Morgan

Principal Programmer Analyst
IT Supply Chain/Replenishment


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry C. Adams
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Midrange-L
Subject: CL Field Size Workaround

I am trying to write a CL program using the following:

 

DSPFD      FILE(SOMELIB/*ALL) TYPE(*MBR) +

             OUTPUT(*OUTFILE) FILEATR(*PF) +  

             OUTFILE(QTEMP/REORGS)            

 

The program will not compile because some of the numeric fields exceed 15.0.
Okay, that I understand.  But is there a workaround?  Heck, I don't even
need those fields.

 

Jerry C. Adams

IBM i Programmer/Analyst

And what is more, I agree with everything I have just said. - Piet
Koornhoff, South African ambassador to the U.S.

--

A&K Wholesale

Murfreesboro, TN

615-867-5070