RE: char to numeric

["Lim Hock-Chai" <Lim.Hock-Chai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wouldn't think it would be accurate to use job starts and ends time
measure performance.  

I personally like to use %dec because I can never remember how many
bytes a 10i 0 occupy or what is the highest value it can hold.

I don't believe a 10i 0 can hold value of 9999999999 (I'm too lazy to
check).
 

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Buck
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:16 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: char to numeric

> This is what it said in the joblog (I assume that means CPU clock
time):
> Cause . . . . . :   Job 361125/PALHC/CVTNUM completed on 03/02/07 at
> 11:55:53 
>   after it used 12 seconds processing unit time.  The job had ending 
> code 0.

Thanks.  What is the elapsed clock time (difference between job start
and end)?  Basically I am curious how much difference the optimised
version saves over the worst version.

In this case, there is probably no code maintenance difference between
%dec, %int and atoi() -- they all look pretty similar to each other and
are about as easy to understand.  Perhaps the BIFs are a tiny bit easier
to understand...  Anyway, I guess this looks to me as though it might be
a case of premature optimisation, especially if someone in the future
reads this thread and doesn't understand the difference between %dec and
%int.
   --buck
--
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing
list To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.