Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 14:33:10 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: rewt@i-Plus.net (Troy Settle) Cc: brian@awfulhak.org, terry@lambert.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fetch Message-ID: <199705312133.OAA11723@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199705312112.RAA02809@radford.i-plus.net> from "Troy Settle" at May 31, 97 05:13:51 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Why not treat a 2 digit year as a year in the current century? no > y2k problem. no y3k problem, etc.. That's actually *why* there is a year 2k problem. Say I want to schedule a conference in 2001... > Really though, a 2 digit year is just a lazy way of writing the date. > It's human readable, but is a pain for software to interpret > correctly. There's no reason for any software to use a 2 digit year > except for formatted user input/output. That's because we have the context in the huge amount of text which accompanies the date to know if it is something that has been scheduled to occur, or something which has already occurred. I would prefer that it be treated as a counting value, that is, N digits is the same as 0 followed by N-1 digits, for this reason. If you awnt the date represented correctly, why then use the correct number of digits. For people ho don't care about "19xx" vs. "20xx", they should equally not care about "00xx". Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705312133.OAA11723>