Re: BIFs requiring constants = frustrating -- RPG400-L

Kurt

I was just told today that COMMON-submitted requirements CAN have more weight than DCR's because they end up going through more than one person - and there is more opportunity for discussion with IBM principals when using the requirements process.

Gotta remember to mention this in the session we will have on requirements and the COMMON Americas Advisory Council at COMMON.

I believe it is possible in the requirement to add yourself in support, also - but don't quote me on that yet, please!

Vern

Kurt Anderson wrote:

Vern, I had one all written up about %dec because I was had a need to round the decimal precision based on a variable. But foolishly I had entered in the requirement data before actually testing (I was going off of memory of the BIF). Then I second guessed myself, and it was the end of the day on Friday, and I had no way to "save" the request. (In hindsight, yes I did, copy and paste each section to a .txt file for the time being.)

I will get to it again. I have the site bookmarked.

For those that haven't used the site, you can actually go view anyone's requirements. Heck, if you agree with one, I suggest creating the same requirement again. Per Alison Butterill, multiple entries (from multiple users) for the same requirement may hold more weight.

http://community.common.org/powerbase/add/

Kurt
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vern Hamberg
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:03 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: BIFs requiring constants = frustrating

Kurt

You could submit a requirement on the COMMON website (www.common.org) - you don't have to be a member but you will need to get a user and password there - easy enough. Go to Member benefits and look for requirements. IBM do listen to us!

VErn

Kurt Anderson wrote:

Hey Rory,

Yeah, that's essentially what I've done. I just felt like ranting, and also opening it up in case I was taking the long way of going about coding my procedure.
Thanks for the response.

-Kurt

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rory Hewitt
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:03 AM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: BIFs requiring constants = frustrating

Kurt,

Until IBM allows variables in these BIF's, you could just write a procedure
which does basic numeric->character conversion for you, so in your in-line
code, you simply have this:

rtnAmount = charValue( Amount : w_DecPos : editCode : '*CURSYM' );

I know, I know, it's not ideal (and it sounds like you may already do (or
want to do) this anyway, but at least you have a single line in your in-line
code, which can eventually be replaced with the variable-allowed-BIF...

Rory

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Kurt Anderson
<kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

%kds - number of keys to use has to be a constant
%dec - length and decimal positions have to be constants
%editc - edit code has to be constant

I'm working with amounts that I'm writing to XML. They can have differing
decimal precision based on the client processed. I thought, wonderful, I
can create a procedure, pass in some parameters, and simply insert those
parms into a statement to format my return value. If only it were so easy.
But why isn't it? What is the purpose of making BIF parms requiring
constant values? Where is the flexibility in that? I suppose it may be
easier on the RPG developers, but is it better for the language?

Info about my example. Amounts are already rounded to the needed
precision. Also, we go out to 6 decimals, I cut the example down to only
going out to two decimals.

So in my example, instead of being able to code:
rtnAmount = %trim( %editC( %dec( Amount: LEN_Amount: w_DecPos ): EditCode:
*CurSym);