Re: LVLCHK(*NO)

["Alan Cassidy" <acassidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Using LVLCHK(*NO) is just the "safest" thing to do.

But, if these two fields are at the *end* of the DDS, and there is no other
change to ANY of the fields that would affect their definitions in the file
AT ALL, IN ANY WAY, and that is the ONLY change, AND it is NOT USED IN ANY
KEY FIELDS AT ALL IN ANY OF THE PF OR LF,

then, well, OK, you can use it. (If you test it real good as a check to make
double-dare-sure that none of the above conditions kicked in).

--Alan


----- Original Message -----
From: "J Michael Smith" <JMichael.Smith@arch.com>
To: "RPG400-L (E-mail)" <RPG400-L@midrange.com>; "RPGIV (E-mail)"
<RPGIV@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:21 PM
Subject: LVLCHK(*NO)


> After reviewing the archives, I find that most would not recommend using
> LVLCHK(*NO).
>
> With that as a given, we are considering adding two alpha(3 position
fields)
> to a master file.  There are no changes of any kind to the previous
"fields"
> and the new fields will be added a the end of the DDS.
>
> Can someone tell me why using LVLCHK(*NO) would the a bad thing to do in
> this situation.
>
> Michael Smith
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>