× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. RPG400-L
  3. October 2009

Re: %date not evaluating in DOW as "I" would expect

Something is going on that is not as expected. My experiences with IBM stuff is that generally one is better off not be redundant in the coding. Belt or suspenders, yes; belt & suspenders, never. The default for %date() is *iso, so why declare it an extra time?

Does this make sense? No, not at all. :) However nothing else has so far, either.




Scott Klement wrote:
What are you suggesting, Booth? That his zoned decimal date isn't really in YYYYMMDD format? He says it contains 20091016 -- if it's not in YYYYMMDD format, wouldn't that cause the program to generate an exception?

I guess I don't follow your logic, Booth.

Booth Martin wrote:
I've been wondering if he could just leave the *iso parm off the %date(bif) (unless he has set a DATFMT keyword) and see if that works as he expects?


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Follow-Ups:
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.