<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic type-subcomponents without specific datatype specification in Application Development and Automation Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/type-subcomponents-without-specific-datatype-specification/m-p/407382#M10652</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am currently working myself into some legacy code and found a &lt;STRONG&gt;types &lt;/STRONG&gt;definition where some of the subcomponents do not have a specific datatype declaration. The code looks something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;CODE&gt;types: begin of my_new_type,
       a_date type d,
       comp_1(10),
       comp_2(2),
      end of my_new_type.&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;The confusing parts for me are&lt;STRONG&gt; comp_1 &lt;/STRONG&gt;and &lt;STRONG&gt;comp_2&lt;/STRONG&gt;. I would guess they are defined as type &lt;STRONG&gt;C&lt;/STRONG&gt; implicitly. However, I wonder how such a definition is valid in a strongly typed programming language.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sebastian&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:19:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-04-12T07:19:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>type-subcomponents without specific datatype specification</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/type-subcomponents-without-specific-datatype-specification/m-p/407382#M10652</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am currently working myself into some legacy code and found a &lt;STRONG&gt;types &lt;/STRONG&gt;definition where some of the subcomponents do not have a specific datatype declaration. The code looks something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;CODE&gt;types: begin of my_new_type,
       a_date type d,
       comp_1(10),
       comp_2(2),
      end of my_new_type.&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;The confusing parts for me are&lt;STRONG&gt; comp_1 &lt;/STRONG&gt;and &lt;STRONG&gt;comp_2&lt;/STRONG&gt;. I would guess they are defined as type &lt;STRONG&gt;C&lt;/STRONG&gt; implicitly. However, I wonder how such a definition is valid in a strongly typed programming language.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sebastian&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:19:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/type-subcomponents-without-specific-datatype-specification/m-p/407382#M10652</guid>
      <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T07:19:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: type-subcomponents without specific datatype specification</title>
      <link>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/type-subcomponents-without-specific-datatype-specification/m-p/407383#M10653</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This is simply the&lt;A href="https://help.sap.com/http.svc/rc/abapdocu_751_index_htm/7.51/en-US/index.htm?file=abaptypes_implicit.htm"&gt; old fashioned and obsolete way &lt;/A&gt;of writing &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;... comp1 TYPE c LENGTH 10&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The result is the same.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:52:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.sap.com/t5/application-development-and-automation-discussions/type-subcomponents-without-specific-datatype-specification/m-p/407383#M10653</guid>
      <dc:creator>retired_member</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T07:52:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

