Re: Converting from %date() to numeric

[Raul Jager <raul@xxxxxxxxxx>]

%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.
>
>