Re: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits? -- RPG400-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits?
From: David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:00:21 -0600
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 12/7/2009 9:56 AM, Luis Rodriguez wrote:

Is it possible that it is looking at the field as packed (so the real field
has a digit more) ?

Thought about that too ... I set the field type to "S" so it couldn't be defined as packed, but got the same error.

david

Follow-Ups:

Re: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits? , Luis Rodriguez
Re: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits? , Robert J. Mullis

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.