Re: Moving a field and removing blanks

["hockchai Lim" <lim.hock-chai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agreed that O extender is probably not very useful and I can eaily live 
without it.  But there is one feature in MOVE opcode (I've not used this 
opcode for years now) that I sometime wish I can have that in free form. 
The feature that I'm speaking of is its ability to move a char string into a 
numeric field.  Well, yes, I can use %dec, %int...  to achive that.  But 
those bif requires actual decimal point to be present in the char string for 
it to work correctly.

Now look at the code below.  The value of the rate would be 12345.67, which 
is what I wanted, after executing the MOVE statement.:
D char7           S              7a   inz('1234567')
D rate            S              7  2

C                   move      char7         rate
. . .

to do this samething in free form, I'll have to do some calculations, not 
bad, but it always makes me think that the program is trying to perform some 
calculation that is related to some sort of a business requirement.

So to achieve the samething as MOVE opcode, I've to do this:
    rate = %dec(char7 :7 :0) / 100
or
    rate = %int(char7) / 100

and if the char7 happens to contain the value of blank, the above code will 
blow up.  MOVE opcode, on the other hand, will set the rate to 0.00.  Oh, 
how I miss the MOVE ......  :)


"Scott Klement" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.17546.1291313969.2702.rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I agree that this O extender is probably not worth doing.  As others have 
> pointed out, you can solve this problem using %subst or %replace, even if 
> the code isn't quite as elegant as we might want.
>
> And how often does someone need to do something like this?  I do a _ton_ 
> of string manipulation of all sorts, but almost never need something like 
> this where data has to be both left-justified and right-justified in the 
> same field.  Indeed, I can't think of any reason why someone would need 
> something like this -- although Pete obviously needs it, it might be the 
> only time he ever will.
>
> On 12/1/2010 7:50 PM, Barbara Morris wrote:
> > I suppose there could be an extender, say O for Overlay, for EVAL and
> > EVALR, not to pad the remainder with blanks.  That idea has been kicking
> > around for a long time, but there is a perceived lack of general
> > usefulness for this feature.  Notwithstanding this current case.