Re: Those flippin dates

[Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pete,

As you found out, EVAL expressions don't like overflow.  The whole math 
technique was predicated on overflow (i.e., digits flying off into 
neverneverland on both the left (high) and right(low) order sides).  It 
will still work if you change it to:

   MMDDYY   MULT   10000.0001   YYMMDD

But the other options presented are probably more efficient.  I once did 
a test on the /36 of the math technique vs the data structure method and 
the DS method won.  Not too important for interactive stuff, but for 
batch against tons of data it made a big difference.  Plus it's probably 
more understandable to someone who never read or knew about the math 
method ("What the @#$% is that all about?!").


	* Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
	615.995.7024
fax
	615.995.1201
email
	jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Pete Helgren wrote:
> What would be the most expedient way to convert a 6.0 numeric field that 
> represents a date in MMDDYY format to a 6.0 numeric field that 
> represents a date in YYMMDD order?  The resultant numeric is used in an 
> SQL statement comparing it to a numeric (not a date) field.  The old 
> technique of  YYMMDD = MMDDYY * 10000.0001 appears not to work because 
> the program is cranky at runtime about the result field not being large 
> enough.
>
> Since the compare is a numeric I figured that the math would be 
> numeric.  Or, is using a date field and converting it to a numeric host 
> variable for the SQL the way to go?
>
> Pete Helgren
>
>