Not that I understand why someone would include *loval in an expression
as suggested...
To address Jon's comment, wouldn't something like %int( *loval ) be
sufficient to cast the type? Not that it compiles today...
Kurt Anderson
Application Developer
Highsmith Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Paris
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:33 AM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: *LOVAL in arithmetic expression
It seems to me that the compiler, when evaluating >> an arithmetic
expression, should be able to handle >> *LOVAL (as negative 9's) and
*HIVAL (as positive >> 9's) either in assignments or in expressions.
I'm not sure this would be a good idea. If all of the operands were
unsigned should it use a value of -9s or +9s? If +9s what if I have a
minus in the calc? Etc. etc.
If the programmer specifically requests a low/high val be assigned to a
variable the compiler can make the appropriate choice. If it tries to
do it in an expression it is just guessing. I'd prefer it the way it is
right now.
Jon Paris
Partner400
www.Partner400.com
--
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing
list To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
midrange.com
