Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:42:39 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, internet@demon.net Subject: Re: fetch Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970603123817.3844F-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199706030124.CAA20769@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Brian Somers wrote: > [.....] > > > I'd therefore consider it reasonable to accept two or three digit > > > years as being assignable directly to tm_year, and four digit years > > > as being subject to the "-1900" code. > > > > Assignable as "19xx +" and "1xxx +", or assignable as "00xx"? If the > > latter, then tht's all I was saying. 8-). > > I reckon: > > 01-Jan-01 => 01-Jan-1901 > 01-Jan-99 => 01-Jan-1999 > 01-Jan-100 => 01-Jan-2000 > 01-Jan-xxxx => 01-Jan-xxxx > > So the code would say "assign to tm_year; if 4 digits, subtract 1900" > bearing in mind that tm_year is defined as "the year less 1900". This is not how date(1) works. I'm not saying that date(1) is correct, but some consistency in hackery would be nice. Maybe we should just tell the world to use hexadecimal years. Then we would now be in the year 0x7CD, and we would have another 50 years to get organised before we hit 0x800 :-) /* Daniel O'Callaghan */ /* HiLink Internet <http://www.hilink.com.au/>; danny@hilink.com.au */ /* FreeBSD - works hard, plays hard... danny@freebsd.org */
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970603123817.3844F-100000>