Re: Quick question: catching exceptions in MOVE statements on time/date data -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: Quick question: catching exceptions in MOVE statements on time/date data
From: "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:05:09 -0700
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l/>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 3/13/25 10:59 AM, Jon Paris wrote:

OOOOpppppppsssss

Forget the last post - of course, TEST(E) can do it.

The only downside is that you are effectively validating the value
twice.

For me I would only use TEST(E) if I anticipated a fairly high error
rate (for example when validating user input) but would use MONITOR
when I only expect 1 in a few thousand to fail.

Thanks to both Jon and Brian. The failure rate is more like 1 in 18k records, but at the same time, since there's a web service call involved in the program (as well as other time-expensive steps), double validation would likely have only a negligible effect on execution speed.

--
JHHL

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Quick question: catching exceptions in MOVE statements on time/date data , Jon Paris

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.