Re: Max length of a VARYING field

[Alan <cfuture@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

_1_ I for one very much LIKE knowing how the compiler internals work, 
especially in the case of this definition. Especially since we will be 
dealing with cross-language issues.

_2_Allowing an implicit higher maximum length for VARYING would break 
some existing code! At least theoretically.

Like where ___%addr( VaryingField ) + 2___, for example, is used in 
reference to a received parameter in a called subprocedure in an 
"obscure" service program. It's something that sophisticated programming 
shops would have to check for if they ratchet up their max to 100,000 
for a VaryingField.

That's the way I might even pass the thing to a second subprocedure to a 
C-type variable that does something, like use a C-function. And I'd 
rather have a syntax issue raised by the compiler than the one suggested 
by Joe. IMO.


--Alan