Re: Strange issue maybe you can help me with Mark

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

  Thanks.  That reinforces my argument about how poorly the problem was 
explained.

  I guess maybe I should have used a <sarcasm> tag for my comment about 
"0404", as I had actually inferred that was meant; although I did 
actually perform the search, just to be sure.  I was mostly trying to 
subtly emphasize, sarcastically, that there is a huge difference between 
receiving "a 0404 error on the new field" and a receiving a RNX#### 
error message identifier which probably would have described the problem 
even better.  I figured the text denigrating what was offered in\by the 
OP as a problem description would give that impression.  I clearly failed.

Regards, Chuck

On 10 Apr 2013 08:42, Anderson, Kurt wrote:
> I believe his reference to 0404 is not the error given, but what the
> field contents look like.
>
> In debug, I verified that the contents of the subfield appear to be
> a slight variation on the hex value (x'40').
>
> D ds_test         DS
> D  subfield                      6p 0
>
> SUBFIELD = 040404.
>
> CRPence Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:30 AM wrote:
>
> > If that understanding is correct, then using SQL DDL to create the
> > file being written-to would /fix/ the issue with the "second
> > program that is reading this file" and thus getting an error, and
> > thus would suffice to "avoid this issue" with the 2nd program
> > getting an error ;-)
> >
> > I am still wondering what a "0404" error is. Seems nobody has ever
> > mentioned "0404" on the RPG list... according to search results.
> > The OP said that "I added a new field", but no mention was made of
> > the data type of the field. Odd how often so little is offered-up
> > about failing scenarios people are having, when they come asking
> > for help :-( And such informative subject lines too; those going to
> > the archives for help on similar issues sure are hopeful they have
> > found an appropriate message thread when they read those titles!
> >
> > I think Rob's second point was his primary impetus in replying,
> > but I may be wrong about that.