Re: Override PF's DATFMT(*USA) using DSPF's DATFMT(*JOB) not working

[Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/8/06, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> For a variety of other reasons you may prefer to define the field as
> 8-char long.  The primary reason is that you can end up with a
> user-unfriendly 01/01/01 on the screen, as a date field will not accept
> zeros or blanks.


Well, in this particular case, there's no way that the record providing the
date information would not have a valid, real date in it.

But, in general, for consistency's sake, I'll probably take your advice on
displaying a character or numeric field.

What happens if the date field in the database file is null-capable and *is*
null (null indicator is on)?  What would the display do with that?

- Dan