RE: Strange behavior w/%editc()

["Richard B Baird" <rbaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe,

maybe after 4 or 5 nested bifs... ;P

I personally a very grateful for many of the bifs that have replaced the
old "move" "movel" stuff.  I tire of creating work fields (wrkfld1,
wrkfld2, wrrkfld3... ad nauseum), having to jump to the 'd' specs to define
another datastructure... or another work field...

plus, bifs ROCK!  (read that: bifs are geeky and cool!)

ttfn,

rick

--original message--
<snip>
> c                   eval      headdesc = Center('Fixed Model FY ' +
> c                              %subst(%editc(fiscalYr -
> 1:'X'):%len(%editc(fiscalYr - 1:'X') - 4) :40)

Or you could do a MOVE (sigh).  Or use a data structure.

I'm guessing that a simple MOVE would probably have a little performance
advantage as well, but I could be wrong.  In any event, just because there
are BIFs doesn't mean we have to use them, does it?  Why not take advantage
of the things RPG is really good at, like data conversion via a simple MOVE
instruction?  When you realize that you might have to string two or more
BIFs together to do the same function as a MOVE, might it not be time to
consider using the MOVE?

Joe