Re: RPG400-L Digest, Vol 8, Issue 568

[dale janus <dalejanus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I did not get any error messages when using *MAP *DROP to add fields, 
leaving the original fields alone in their original positions.

Every time I used *NOCHK in the past, I was adding fields on the end so 
everything lined up.   Now I know better.

---Dale

rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Send RPG400-L mailing list submissions to
> 	rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	rpg400-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPG400-L digest..."
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *** NOTE: When replying to this digest message, PLEASE remove all text unrelated to your reply and change the subject line so it is meaningful.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  timestamp data type in DDS (Tom Liotta)
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: timestamp data type in DDS
> From:
> Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:55:29 -0700
> To:
> rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To:
> rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> dale janus wrote:
> > Hmmm, why not use CHGPF?
> >
> > Because old habits die hard?
> >
> > Because the first time I tried CHGPF I got a warning message that 
> > scared me that I could lose data?
>
> Does CPYF with (*MAP *DROP) not give a similar message? It should; I 
> haven't actually looked. I'd expect mostly the same kinds of 'loss of 
> data' to be possible both ways. Maybe the warning is a _good_ thing, eh?
>
> Of course, CPFY with *NOCHK should be an obvious 'loss leader'. That 
> should almost require additional programming to force the function to 
> continue after acknowledging the condition.
>
> Tom Liotta