|
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com] > You work around the issue by moving the date to a temporary > working field and then moving it to the varying field. Exactly how much > work would it have been for the compiler to do something similar? But then they break their own rules about not modifying the length of a varying field using fixed length OP codes such as MOVE. Now they would have to kludge the MOVE opcode to act differently for data than any other type of data, which would bring added complexity. I'm sorry, I would rather that they put in multi dimensional arrays, which is a pain in the neck to work around, rather than being allowed to MOVE a date into a varying string, which is an easy work around. I think I'm saying, I would rather that they spend my $100 putting stuff in that I either cant' do right now, or takes a lot of kludging on my part to get done, then to pretty up the little things. Regards, Jim Langston
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
