Re: The case of outnumbered numerator

[Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Certainly makes the whole thing a heck of a lot easier.

Another option that could be simply implemented using IBM APIs is to us a hex key. Maintain internally as integer, add 1 and convert to hex for output.


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Jun 17, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> My first thought is to do it the other way round.  Put the letter to the front, not to the rear.  A99999,B00000, B00001... etc.
>
> On 6/17/2015 12:44 AM, Gad Miron wrote:
> > Hello Pundits
> >
> > We have a six digits numerator that approaches 899999.
> >
> > Since it happens to be a CHAR  field I would like to start using the
> > letters A-Z
> > in lexical order when incrementing this field so that incrementing
> > 899999 will result in 9AAAAA , 9AAAAB , ......., 9AAAAZ, 9AAAA0, 9AAAA1 etc.
> > (This way the numerator will sort the EBCDIC natural way)
> >
> > Do you know an *elegant* way of doing it ?
> > (EBCDIC table having "holes" of unprintable chars does not expedite matters)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Gad
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.