RE: Date fields and moving from yyyymmdd to mmddyy

[Buck Calabro <buck.calabro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Booth wrote:

>Now I realize that instead of a couple of lines of simple 
>and clear code we have D-specs, Test opcode, *LOVAL,  
>*HIVAL, Procedures, date formats,  *MDY, *MDY/, and 
>on and on.   What used to be a couple of simple, clear, 
>and accurate lines of code has become a nightmare 
>of new code scattered all over the place.  It looks even 
>worse than when my cat scatters kitty litter.

My memory colours the past about the same way yours does Booth.  <grin>
When I look more objectively at things, I remember complaining about having
to convert the database to YYMMDD format and having to add "those doofus
calculations" to convert back to MMDDYY for display/print.  After all,
tag-along sorts work perfectly well with MMDDYY (the original "native" date
format for the US!).

>I do like the ability to add dates to dates.  I've used it 
>twice in the last two years alone.

There's a seemingly limitless ability (need?) for magazines, etc. to hype
the heck out of new op-codes (remember the debut of "structured" opcodes?)
The simple truth is that date math DOES have it's place.  You don't need it
everywhere, but when you need it, you need it BAD.  Now that the onus of
accurate date math is on the compiler and not me, I feel much better about
offering a solution that requires date math.  I always had doubts (maybe
small ones...) about my own routines and even published code like "The Last
Date Routines You'll Ever Need."

Buck Calabro
+---
| 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
+---