Re: %editc vs %char (was free form alternatives?)

>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