Incorrectly reported bug issue

[Bruce Easton]

To be clear, the online manual before today already specified 
'date_expr'.  I'm not sure if it was updated recently, but as it stands 
today, it is very clear in describing 'date_expr' - that arguments to 
these date functions should be dates cast as date types (system edits).

So, 'date_expr' evidently is limited to:

-a field cast as a date type; or
-the result of a function that is, itself, a cast date type (I've not 
tried it, but have heard that doedit works; if so, then I would imagine 
other date-returning functions would work.)

--Bruce


On 6/20/17 12:44 AM, Richard Kreiss via Filepro-list wrote:
> My problem was forgetting that when passing values using -r, -rw, -rx, -ry, -rz that this information is not formatted in any way (no edits).  Therefore BOM(@qx) will not work.  As pointed to me, the online documents are very clear about this.  Bruce Easton indicated that it may be better if, when using date functions, that (exp) be replaced with (date Exp) so there is no confusion about what is needed inside the parenthesis.
>
> [..]
>
>
> Richard Kreiss
> GCC Consulting
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus