Re: 1-Byte Integer data type in RPG

rob wrote:
 ...
> When they added the 1 byte support I wonder if the lack of a 1b field
> was
> either:
> A)  Because of a desire to get people to go to the more robust integer
> B)  Code that was automatically converted from 1 byte to 2 bytes under the
>     covers might break if they left it as 1 byte.

Then I wrote:
> Both, but mainly B)

Then rob wrote:
> I can respect that.
> Perhaps this should be a lesson that in the future to NOT allow people to
> go whilly nilly.  If they mean two bytes, then code two bytes, etc.

Oops, I misread your B) option.  The reason that 1-byte binary could not
be supported was that the B type was already defined so that 1B to 4B
means 2 bytes and 5B to 9B means 4 bytes.  It wasn't under the covers. 
I suppose we could have added some syntax to allow specifying both the
number of decimal digits AND the number of bytes, but now your A) option
comes into play.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allow people to go whilly nilly". 
Remember that the B type is really a decimal type, and that although
2B-0, 2B-1, 3B-0 all occupy two bytes, they are three different types.