|
Oh, yes. But it is becoming a standard to store dates in a date variable, just because they will do so much for us that numeric variables won't. I think that storing a date as *HIVAL in a date field which would produce 9999-12-31 would be just as good as using 99999999 in a numeric field. I don't really think we have to worry about the Y10K bug just yet. personally, I use *LOVAL of 0001-01-01 because it just looks more like an empty date than 9999-12-31 does. Regards, Jim Langston Raul Jager wrote: > In a numeric variable, that is later used as CCYYMMDD you can store > 99999999, but do advise agist it becuause you will get error if you try > to convert it or move it to a date field, in order to do DATE > Arithmetic. <SNIP> +--- | 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 +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.