Re: easier SQL statements in CL

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott

Thanks for mentioning this - the data-structure-like concept, for me, at 
least, really comes from using *DEFINED, not *BASED.

I've used *BASED to work through multiple entries in a list API, as 
someone else mentioned - then the *DEFINED variables are just populated 
- very cool stuff!

Vern

On 5/14/2012 12:26 PM, Scott Klement wrote:
> Hiya Folks,
>
> Consider using STG(*DEFINED) fields instead of *BASED for this type of
> logic.  No need to do pointer math that way, and aside from the pointer
> stuff, they work the same as *BASED.  Save *BASED for times when you
> need to be able to change the address in memory where the variables point.
>
> As for Joel's initial question, a *MSGF/RTVMSG might be an easier
> solution.  But, ultimately, the problem is that CL just isn't that good
> at string manipulation. Using a better language like RPG or REXX would
> almost certainly work better. Why force a square peg through a round hole?
>
> -SK
>
>
> On 5/14/2012 9:49 AM, DrFranken wrote:
> > I'm going to guess no, but in some cases you might be able to simplify
> > by declaring&P_CLIENT,&P_SEQ etc as *BASED fields of a longer
> > character variable thus building the VALUES( clause there.  It could
> > look as simple as VALUES(&VALUES) avoiding all those *cats in your program.