Re: Converting from %date() to numeric -- RPG400-L

%char ( %date() : *iso ) will give 2000-02-09 and the separators will cause the %int to fail, or to evaluate the aritmetic expression. That's why I use a format without separators. Never try *iso 0, I may be wrong, but I remember reading that ISO had the separators mandatory. I'm still using V5.2.

It makes sense that the compiler will choose the proper format for the output when the function is called by another function. No separtors is obvious, but how does the compiler chooses the order? dmy? iso? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Paul Jackson wrote:

FYI, Under V5R3 you can also use the %DEC BIF directly:
        numeric_date = %dec( %date() );
numeric_date = %int( %char( date_field: *cymd0)) + 19000000;
Sorry if I'm confused, but why would you want to do this? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the following?
         numeric_date = %int( %char( date_field : *iso0) );
It just seems to me that hardcoding 19000000 is a bad idea when you can easily get that information from the system. If you ever need to handle dates later than 2899 (not that that's very likely) you'll have to change every single program, just like we did with Y2K.

I know, we'll all be dead & gone by then. But why hard-code a century when it's actually LESS code to do it properly? That's the part that I don't understand.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.