RE: Max length of a VARYING field

Yes Bob it does...by the time 8 byte int is necessary...I'll be retired
;^)



Thanks,
Tommy Holden


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Cozzi
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 1:36 PM
To: 'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'
Subject: RE: Max length of a VARYING field

Does it Tommy?
Or does it beg, why didn't they start with an 8-byte integer?

Limits change, needs change, DASD and memory limits go up, etc.


-Bob Cozzi
www.i5PodCast.com
Ask your manager to watch i5 TV



-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Holden Tommy
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:24 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Max length of a VARYING field

This begs the question....why did varying fields not start with a 4 byte
integer? Seems that a little "forward-thinking" would have been in
order?? No offense...i love the enhancements made to the RPG language
over the past few years...but seems like it would have been the logical
choice...


Thanks,
Tommy Holden


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Carpenter
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:16 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: Max length of a VARYING field

Barbara Morris wrote:

When RPG lifts the 64K restriction for strings, it will have to use a
4-byte prefix for varying fields longer than 64K. When that happens,
you will want to find all the places where you have done this
calculation, in case you increase the size of your fields to the point

where they need the bigger prefix.

I'm all for the increased size, but...

I hope there will be an option to retain the 2-byte prefix for backward
compatibility. If not, this could become an infamous gotcha where if
someone compiles 1 module/program they end up having to fix a whole
series of programs.


Keith