| From: | Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(at)nhh(dot)no> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 |
| Date: | 1999-01-11 07:01:54 |
| Message-ID: | 86vhie2syl.fsf@athene.nhh.no |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)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.
Then again, I also think computer systems should refuse to accept
non-ISO8601 date specifications, so I may be a bit too pedantic. :-)
-tih
--
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-01-11 07:26:51 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 |
| Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-01-10 18:08:16 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and dates (year 2000? not!) |