Re: Alternatives to MOVEL - just curious

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kind of has me feeling like a lexical parser!!

This has 3 built-ins - I kind of want something with minimal calls to BIFs.

And that is coming from this guy who CAN put together some longish 
nested function calls - obfuscation contests, here we come!

Vern

On 12/9/2013 12:44 PM, Dave Shaw wrote:
> Vern,
>
> So would this be preferable?
>
>
> num4 = %dec(%subst(%char(num6):1:4):4:0);
>
> I'm not sure it's more readable at a glance, but if you read through it, I think it's pretty clear that it's saying 'Take the first 4 digits of the 6-digit number and plug them into a 4,0 number'.  I'm not sure how it'll perform, but it can't be worse than division.
>
>
> Is it worth what you paid for it? <grin>
>
>   
> Dave Shaw
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to MOVEL - just curious
>   
>
> I agree that this works - but it's like the old multiplication technique
> to shift date formats. It was a trick, and prone to strange looks until
> we knew the trick.
>
> As is the division technique. And there you may have to rely on
> precision rules of the calculation.
>
> Of course, as Trevor Briggs said - documentation - comments, right?   :)
>
> Vern
>
> On 12/9/2013 12:20 PM, Booth Martin wrote:
> >         Num4 = Num6 * .01;
> >
> > On 12/9/2013 10:31 AM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
> > > Hi y'all
> > >
> > > I'm looking at some code - the purpose is to put the 1st 4 digits of a
> > > 6-digit variable into a 4-digit numeric variable.
> > >
> > > It is being done with the MOVEL opcode now.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering about efficient alternative methods. One I can think of is
> > > to use a data structure -
> > >
> > > dcl-ds dsMoveL qualified;
> > >        num4 zoned(4);
> > >        num6 zoned(6) pos(1);
> > > end-ds;
> > >
> > > Anything simpler? Better performing?
> > >
> > > I hope the syntax is right!! But you get the idea, right?