Re: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits? -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits?
From: David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:52:37 -0600
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <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>

On 12/7/2009 12:33 PM, Jerry Adams wrote:

What's it supposed to say, David? "Upgrade to V5R3"?

Perhaps: "Numeric field definition exceeds 32 digits"?

The error message, as it stands, indicates that the maximum size of the numeric field is 63 digits ... and the field definition I'm trying to use is more than that.

david

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: Numeric value defined as 63 digits actually greater than 63 digits? , Jerry Adams

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.