RE: Max length of a VARYING field

From: Scott Klement

I don't need you to teach me RPG.

Nope, you're pretty doggone good at it. I say that all the time. Honest!

Thanks. I expressed my opinion about
how I'd like to see VARYING done in the future, because it would make my
life easier.

And I expressed my opinion! Isn't the Internet great?

Please stop wasting my time by dragging this thread out forever.

<chuckle> I absolutely LOVE when someone goes to the trouble of posting a
message saying how the thread has gone too long!

I don't see how listing "VARYING4" (or VARYING(4) or VARYING(*MAX4GB))
"adds overhead for everybody".

Well, we could let IBM decide based on the length of the field, and then we
wouldn't have to specify the index size and everything would work just fine.

Or we can try to make the language work how you want it to.

One option is to have ALL fields have a 48-bit index, and then we wouldn't
have to specify the index size -- that was the "adds overhead for everybody"
option. Or we can go with the extra keyword on the VARYING clause. That's
a different kind of overhead: it adds an unnecessary keyword. Talk about
making the language harder to teach! Just try explaining why you would
specify a *MAX4GB value for a field with a defined maximum length of 2KB.

(I knew I should've just gone quiet the moment Joe Pluta got involved in
this thread. Always a mistake to get into any sort of a discussion with
him.)

You know, there's a specific group of people who says that all the time,
Scott. And you're right, rather than discussing issues with me most of them
would be better off with those little dashboard dogs that just nods its
head.

On the other hand, some people actually appreciate my opinions! What I find
really interesting is that it's usually the "industry experts" that get mad
at me. Funny world, isn't it?

Joe