Re: "extract" command enhancement

Jon wrote:
> >> The name we're currently leaning towards is "%subdtz".
> >> As in, the sub-part of a date, time, or timestamp value.
>
>Not wild about that one Hans - for one thing I don't think I'd ever be able to
>remember it <bg>.  It's just too arcane. One of the things I was trying to
>suggest with %Part - %Segment - %Subfld - %Item was that the portion extracted
>depended on the *D or whatever that was coded - I don't see that the BIF needs
>to have a strong association with date/time/timestamp per se.  Who knows -
there
>may be other things we want to extract components from in future - why tie it
to
>DTZ?

I agree that "%subdtz" is a bit awkward.  How about "%subd" or
"%subdt"?  (I'm currently leaning towards "%subdt".)

I sympathize with what you're saying about making it general,
but in the absence of specific scenarios, it's hard to picture
the usefulness.  Furthermore, different compound objects have
different characteristics which make the design of a common
extract bif difficult.  Look at the current precedent, "%subst".
The attributes of a component of a string (position, length)
are different than the attributes of a component of a date,
time, or timestamp value (year, month, etc.).  For some other
possible compound type, the attributes of a component will
likely be different again.

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---