RE: Max length of a VARYING field

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Bob Cozzi
>
> I find that this whole thread based on fantasy and nearly specious
> reasoning.

Ah yes!  One of the sure signs of an "industry expert": other people's
opinions are "fantasy" and "specious reasoning".


> First, IBM has not made a change.
> Second, we don't get to make the decisions on the compiler design--
> comment, yes, but not decide.

Who was deciding anything?  It's just opinions here.  Yours, mine, Scott's:
all barking at the moon, baby.  The only one whose opinion really matters is
Barbara's.


> It also forces your eye to that code so that you realize
> it isn't a 2-byte hidden length. :)

But if the prefix length is COMPLETELY hidden (that is, based on the size of
the field), then most programmers don't know and don't care.  The only ones
who do care are people who currently play with the field's internals using
+/-2.  They get a new BIF (%indexsize) and we all get out alive.


> As for teaching this to people, gosh, let's see, shall I start the list of
> things that are inconsistent in RPG IV and have to be pounded into
> students?

Actually, Bob, I was being mildly sarcastic about the teaching bit, since it
was originally Scott who complained about how a maximum length keyword would
make it more difficult for him to teach the poor misguided RPG programmers.

Personally, I find RPG programmers to be some of the smartest programmers on
the planet (maybe partly because so many come from business backgrounds).

Joe