RE: Strange behavior w/%editc()

> From: Nicolay, Paul
>
> If the discussion is/was about legacy code using MOVE operations... then
> there isn't much to say, except that I would recommend to convert it to
> EVALs (whether or not they're a valid replacement - the same can be said
> about native IO and SQL as well, hence people migrated anyway).

Don't get me started on SQL <grin>.


> I guess we have been saved from huge code rewrites since RPGIII existed,
> while on other platforms huge code rewrites seems to be a yearly
> task

To my mind, one of the major reasons the midrange and RPG have survived
these many years - the sheer body of code written over the last 2+ decades.


> What's wrong with implicit type conversions ?... they decrease readability
> since they do things that isn't visible straight away (at least in a
> "complex" %SUBST instruction you see that something is done).  The C style
> casting is in that way much clearer.

Okee dokee.  It seems that most veteran RPG programmers woudl understand it,
while newbies from the C/C++ world might not.  I'm willing to live with
that.


> Discussions about languages is something I normally also try to avoid,
> however we iSeries people seem to be the only ones that realize
> that RPG has
> its strengths, and should be used as a business language and not
> some other
> hyped language.

You're right, and it's really time I dropped this thread.  I doubt there are
many fence-straddlers on this issue - you either use MOVE or you don't.
No-one will be impressed or swayed by my rantings, so on to the next
topic... <smile>

Joe