RE: Target for numeric operation too small...hello, Toronto?

But wouldn't it be nice to know it at time of compile instead of time of
execution????

That way I could fix the problem BEFORE it halts on me.





                    Buck Calabro
                    <Buck.Calabro@com       To:     rpg400-l@midrange.com
                    msoft.net>              cc:
                    Sent by:                Subject:     RE: Target for numeric 
operation too small...hello,
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi        Toronto?
                    drange.com


                    12/06/01 10:08 AM
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l






>>I frankly would have liked to have seen
>>a different option on the error
>>message; "allow truncation."
>
>How about: EVAL(T)

Hi Mark!
I liken numeric truncation to an invalid array index.  Rather than add an
operand extender to allow the invalid index (or set it to 1) I would prefer
to have a hard halt so that the operator is aware that we're about to lose
some precision.

After consulting with the programmer (me), it would be nice if the operator
could take a "T" option, allow truncation and continue.  If it's a first
test, I might like to see the full scale results because the truncation may
be only one of several issues I need to address.

But I _prefer_ the hard error.
  --buck
_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.