Re: %Len vs. %Size in %Replace

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In this case, when dealing with %LEN(STR) and %SIZE(STR) where STR 
is a fixed length character variable, the BIF's should return the 
same value. One difference may be that %SIZE() provides a value 
known at compile time, which can be used during the relational 
diagnostics phase.

On a V5R2 machine, the first code fragment does indeed compile for 
me. Looking at the compiler code, I see there were some code changes 
in V4R4. So perhaps Mark is targetting a release prior to then?

Cheers! Hans


DeLong, Eric wrote:

> Mark, the size of the field indicates its defined size (in bytes), but it
> doesn't necessarily mean that the field holds that much data.  Varying
> length character fields and double-byte-character-sets really depend on
> interpreting the length of the character string, not the actual number of
> bytes that was reserved by the compiler.
>
> Eric DeLong
> Sally Beauty Company
> MIS-Project Manager (BSG)
> 940-898-7863 or ext. 1863
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Lazarus [mailto:mlazarus@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:58 PM
> To: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: %Len vs. %Size in %Replace
>
>
>   Why doesn't %Replace() accept the %Size BIF in the 4th parm?
>
>   This won't compile - it receives "RNF0384 The fourth parameter for 
> %REPLACE is not valid."
>
> ObjectName      10A
> String  80A
>
> C       EVAL String = %Replace( ObjectName :
>                         String :
>                         %Scan( 'qqqqqqqqqq': String ) :
>                         %Size( ObjectName ) )
>
>   This does compile:
>
> C       EVAL String = %Replace( ObjectName :
>                         String :
>                         %Scan( 'qqqqqqqqqq': String ) :
>                          %Len( ObjectName ) )
>
>   -mark