Re: Trigger weirdness with L-Date fields

On Aug 24, 2011, at 3:09 PM, midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I think he said he was one byte off. Which often occurs when you don't
think pointers but instead think the old "let's copy into another field or
data structure" approach.

Yes - the "one byte" bit came in after I sent my post Rob. Another good reason not to use the "define by hand an move a lump" approach. Can't recall the release (V4R2?) but when the record buffer portion was changed to always be on a 16 byte boundary an awful lot of trigger programs broke because folks had ignored IBM's advice to always use the offset and not rely on the buffer immediately following the fixed header.

Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com