Re: Complex Eval

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Arthur,

> After the 'eval', pr_year contained 00, not 07. I figured I'm not 
> understanding something about the step-by-step nature of complex 
> statements.

I believe that the output of %subdt() is actually a 10i 0 variable. This 
is done because 10i 0 is the fastest performing numeric field on the 
system, and it's large enough to support any possible number that can be 
returned by the %subdt() function.

In the middle of your "one big expression" you have this:

     %editc(%subdt(iso_date:*y):'X')

The problem with that is that when you apply %EDITC to a 10i 0 field, 
you end up with a 10-character string.  For example, you'll have a 
character string like this '0000002007' When you try to take a %subst() 
of that field from position 3, you'll get '00' because the 07 is 
actually in positions 9-10.

If you really want your big ugly expression to work, you can do it this way:

  pr_year = %dec(%subst(%editc(%subdt(iso_date:*y):'X'):9:2):2:0)

However, here's an alternative syntax that I think is nicer:

  pr_year = %rem(%subdt(iso_date:*Y): 100);


> eval      fscl@yr = %subdt(iso_date:*y) 
> eval      pr_year = %dec(%subst(%editc(fscl@yr:'X'):3:2):2:0) 
>
> This worked fine. 

The reason that this worked is that the output of %subdt() is saved into 
a separate field thats (presumably) a 4,0 field.  Therefore, when the 
%EDITC runs, it generates '2007' instead of '0000002007' since it's 
taking the edit code of a 4-digit field instead of the edit code of a 10 
digit field.