RE: Date compare Best Practices

["Bob Cozzi" <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually Hans, that's not it at all.
If I have a display file with one or two date fields in it (and we're
talking RPGIII here) I would rather write two MULT and get it done than
worry about setting up a DS in RPGIII and moving the bytes around. 
If I were reading say 100,000,000 database records and converting a date
field in them, then I would probably use the DS method.
-Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hans Boldt
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:42 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Date compare Best Practices

Bob Cozzi wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with using the "MULT 10000.01" technique in RPGIII.
I
> do it every time I need to convert a date in that old language.
> If you use it in RPG IV, then you are right it is a questionable choice.
> The only other technique in RPG III is to use a data structure, but that
can
> be a bit more complex that the MULT. If you haven't seen it before then it
> doesn't matter which one you use because the person maintaining the code
> after you will have to deal with it, so just be sure to document it
> properly.
> -Bob

Well, once you factor in the necessary comments, moving DS subfields 
still ends up as fewer source records. Not to mention 100-150 times 
faster. But why use a clear and efficient programming technique when 
there are some really cool ways (like that MULT trick) to show off your 
programming prowess? ;-)

Cheers! Hans

_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.