RE: *LOVAL in arithmetic expression -- RPG400-L

Subject: RE: *LOVAL in arithmetic expression
From: "Jon Paris" <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:32:50 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

It seems to me that the compiler, when evaluating
an arithmetic expression, should be able to handle
*LOVAL (as negative 9's) and *HIVAL (as positive
9's) either in assignments or in expressions.

I'm not sure this would be a good idea. If all of the operands were
unsigned should it use a value of -9s or +9s? If +9s what if I have a minus
in the calc? Etc. etc.

If the programmer specifically requests a low/high val be assigned to a
variable the compiler can make the appropriate choice. If it tries to do it
in an expression it is just guessing. I'd prefer it the way it is right
now.

Jon Paris
Partner400

www.Partner400.com

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: *LOVAL in arithmetic expression , Kurt Anderson

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.