RE: Strange behavior w/%editc()

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> From: Simon Coulter
>>
>> The complementary operations
>> can be handled in a similar manner but I leave that as an exercise for
>> the reader.
>>
>> So, exactly what business need cannot be serviced by the above
>> replacements?  Exactly how are the MOVE variants clearer or easier to
>> code than the EVAL replacements?
>>
>> Quod erat demonstrandum!

> From: Reeve Fritchman
>
> Simon, thanks for a fine summary.  But what makes you think logic will
> overcome opinion?

I love it when you take a backhanded whack at anybody who disagrees with
you, Reeve.  It's so endearing.

In any event, if, in your mind

    eval %subst(lotnumber : 3 : 8) = %editc(Lotseq : 'X')

is a logical replacement for

    MOVE LOTSEQ LOTNUMBER

then fine.  I disagree.  I think the extra coding is unnecessary.  Not only
that, but to keep the exact equivalence (that is, the code will still put
the lot sequence in the last six positions of the lot number, regardless of
the size of my lotnumber field), I have to do this:

    eval %subst(lotnumber : (%len(lotnumber) - %len(lotseq)) + 1 :
%len(lotseq)) =
         %editc(lotseq : 'X')

As always, the devil is in the details.  It's the part that's left to the
student that's the hardest.

Joe