Re: Target for numeric operation too small

["Booth Martin" <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"idiotic"  may be the correct term, but I'll defend truncated fields.  First
 it goes way back to punched cards and 80 column restraints. Second, how it
worked was clearly understood and not confusing to the bookkeeper types that
learned the "new" RPG way of generating reports.  Remember Jon, some of
those guys saw RPG as a huge leap from "programming" metal bars on Burroughs
accounting machines.  15/5 has little appeal to someone needing $0.00 for
reports.

Besides, how else do you get   C   MULT 1000.01   to work?




--------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
MartinB@Goddard.edu
802-454-8315 x235
--------------------------------------------
-------Original Message-------
From: rpg400-l@midrange.com
Date: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:52:28 AM
To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
Subject: Target for numeric operation too small
>> So the compiler /can/ figure out if a field's going to be too small. So

we get a message in the compiler output, and 99.999% of us will ignore it
anyway.
Seems to me that one possible solution to this issue would be to have a
compiler option that raises the severity of the "too small" warning message
so that it kills the compile. Of course you'd still have to remember to
specify it .......
Changing the compiler to allow truncation is a definite no-no for me. I
always thought he way that RPG/400 worked was idiotic and was delighted when
Toronto added the option to have ADD/SUB/etc. blow up on overflow the way
that EVAL does.
Jon Paris
Partner400
_______________________________________________