Re: Max length of a VARYING field

[Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott Klement wrote:
> ...
> I think I'd be worried about the 30 being mistaken for the length in 
> this case.  (Not by the compiler, of course, but by the programmer 
> reading the code.)
> ...
> Something like VARYING4 doesn't have that problem....  Just food for 
> thought.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Scott.  We have thought about 
VARYING4, but we would want to allow the explicit VARYING2 as well, and 
we think that it's more clear that VARYING and VARYING(2) are equivalent 
than that VARYING and VARYING2 are equivalent.  The concept of a default 
parameter is common in RPG, but VARYING2 looks like it means something 
different from VARYING.

Ultimately, people have to know what the syntax means anyway, but I 
agree that it's ideal if someone reading the code can guess right about 
what it means.