Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.05.9901110325280.10663-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@nhh.no>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 Jan 1999, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote: > "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > > > We do need to handle two-digit years, [...] > > Is it at all possible to get away with _not_ doing so? It is, after > all, incredibly stupid to use two-digit years in anything but spoken > conversation, so in a way, I'd prefer computer systems to blankly > refuse them. If they're allowed at all, I'd say parse them so that a > year specification of '99' means the actual year 99. _Not_ 1999. Falling back to a Unix standard...type 'cal 99' and see which year you get :) I agree with Tom on this...if someone types a year of 99, we should presume that whomever entered it knew what they were entering, and/or that the programmer of the interface had enough sense to program checks into it... Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: