× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



>From: nb@unitessile.it
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:50:48 +0100
>
>>> Oh, and why do you think %editc is more complex than %char?
>Because %editc() has a more complex work to do (decide if need
>decimalpoint/thiusand point, check for decedit value, suppress/not suppres
zero,
>etc) that %char() which should act in a more linear way (at least, FWIK,
>%editc(myval:'X') might be converte in retunr(%char(Myval)  :-)))

The compiler builds the edit mask at compile time, so the decisions
don't have to be made at runtime.

But in fact, %char is about 3 times faster than %editc with the 'P' edit
code for a 15,5 value set to *LOVAL.  I don't know if %char is faster
in general.  They are probably both fast enough, so use %char when you
want "normal" editing without having to trim the result, and use %editc
when you want something besides "normal" editing, or when you want the
result to always have the same length.

Barbara Morris



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.