RE: free-format move *USA date value to 6-digit numeric in YMDformat

rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   8. RE: free-format move *USA date value to 6-digit numeric in
>      YMDformat (Bob Cozzi)
>
>In my view, RPG IV should NEVER be enhanced except on a VxR1 boundary.
>This means that enhancements can come out whenever they want, every year for
>that matter, but they have to work on VxR1 and later, never "only" on VxR2
>or VxR3 and later. 


I'd love to see it work that way. I'd be interested in how far IBM could 
reasonably approach that goal while maintaining support for my ILE RPG 
programs...

Scenario: I create a program using V5 of RPG IV. Now, let's say I create it on 
a V5R1 system using the PTFs that will come out as part of V5R4 (assuming V5R4 
comes out).

Since, under the only-at-version-boundaries rules, PTFs would be made available 
for all releases within the version, it kind of becomes possible to create a 
V5R4 program on a V5R1 system. I realize it's not a V5R4 *PGM object, but it 
has capabilities that won't be possible under the current at-every-release 
rules of today. Under today's rules, I can't compile the program until I get a 
V5R4 compiler.

Next week, I restore that program on a V5R3 system. Are any PTFs necessary on 
that system?

For many functions (%bifs), it's perhaps purely a matter of arranging the same 
available machine instructions in a different order. If it's just stringing 
machine instructions together in an executeable, the compiler doesn't need to 
know as much about the target environment -- it knows the instructions 
themselves aren't going to change. The operating environment is somewhat 
irrelevant. But for others, it might be a matter of having a different 
procedure available in a service program at run-time.

I may be complicating things, but perhaps an upgrade on our own systems might 
be a problem if we've used functions that were PTFd in from a later release. By 
disconnecting compiler releases from OS/400 (i5/OS) releases, maybe OS upgrades 
wouldn't be disruptive.

I recall when PTFs for the compilers were designated differently than those for 
OS/400. But it's been long enough that I don't recall how often a RPG or COBOL 
PTF had an OS/400 PTF as pre-/co-req. I do recall some difficulties in keeping 
track of what needed to go on and when.

Tom Liotta