RE: Compile error - why?

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jim Langston
>
> But then they break their own rules about not modifying the
> length of a varying
> field using fixed length OP codes such as MOVE.

I want to clarify this particular point:

I never said anything about changing the length of the field, Jim.  They
could have moved the date to a temporary variable, then moved that into the
varying field using the normal rules of varying fields, just like what Rich
did in the original post.

And that's going to do it for me for this thread.  It's already taking too
much bandwidth.  I'm in no way saying the compiler is bad, or the compiler
team is evil, or anything like that.  I just wanted to state my opinion that
just because there's a workaround is not necessarily a valid reason to not
include a feature.  I made my point, and don't want to argue over what is
essentially a nitpick that I started in the first place.

Joe