Question about type definitions

Two ways. Assume table dbtab has a field called f1.

TYPES:
  BEGIN OF MYTYPE,
    dbtab          TYPE dbtab,
    myf1,
    myf2,
  END OF MYTYPE.

DATA:
  myvar TYPE MYTYPE.
...

WRITE: myvar-dbtab-f1, myvar-myf1.

or

TYPES:
  BEGIN OF MYTYPE.
    INCLUDE STRUCTURE dbtab.
TYPES:
    myf1,
    myf2,
  END OF MYTYPE.

DATA:
  myvar TYPE MYTYPE.
...

WRITE: myvar-f1, myvar-f2.

Personally I dislike the syntax of the second since it requires a break in the chaining (that is a second TYPES statement). It is possible that nowadays INCLUDE STRUCTURE xxx should be INCLUDE TYPE xxx - haven't tried for a while but you should get the idea.

It is also clearer (IMO) with the first approach what the data represents, plus you don't have to worry about field-names conflicting - that is, it wouldn't matter if dbtab also had a field called myf1.

Scott

Use INCLUDE STRUCTURE and then individually place the other two fields between BEGIN and END in the TYPE definition.

TYPES: BEGIN OF....

INCLUDE STRUCTURE DBNAME.

TYPES: f1 type ..

f2 type ..

END OF ...