Re: Opinions on determining which constraint

["Paul Tuohy" <tuohyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

I have no idea if you imagined IBM standard procedures or not :-)

It makes sense that the layout would not change and that IBM would not break
it.
I guess I just have a natural dislike of defining substrings.

Yes, I am checking the actual message data returned in RCVM0100. I would
prefer to have a way of retrieving &16 as opposed to substringing the 258
characters starting at position 177 of the message data. But it isn't worth
the effort of retrieving the message description to figure out the starting
position and length of &16.

Thanks

Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Klement" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions on determining which constraint


>
> > I don't want to "hard code" the starting position of the constraint name
> > in the message data - it may change in the future.
>
> Why would it change?  You're checking the actual message data, not the
> text of the message itself, right?   IIRC, the constraint name is in &16
> (the 16th field in the message data) you're checking that field, not
> scanning the second-level text, right?
>
> I don't see why that position would ever change.  If it did change, it
> would break a lot of programs.
>
> I thought it was standard procedure for IBM to add additional fields to
> the message data if they wanted to change the layout of the returned
> data, rather than changing existing fields, so that existing programs
> wouldn't break?
>
> Or did I imagine that?
>