RE: 2039 cutoff

["Paul Nelson" <nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<<The frustrating thing is on the Y2K tool we bought back in 1997, from
Linoma,  had the option of handling all conversion in a callable routine.>>

Sounds like something we did at a software house back in the 80's. The dates
were stored as a 5 digit number. Day number 1 was January 1st, 1977. Day
number 36525 was December 31, 2076. We were Y2K compliant way back then.

We used internal code (written in assembler) to convert the date keyed by
the user to the 5 digit "century date", and to unconvert it for display to
the user to see.

Paul Nelson
Office 512-392-2577
Cell 708-670-6978
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gqcy
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 3:16 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 2039 cutoff

We just had that discussion a few weeks ago at my shop.
Our reason we convert 8 position to 6 is to not cause dissonance with 
users. :)  we as well needed to allow "all 9's", "all 0's" for special
meaning.  Again, this would be a easy job if not for those pesky users.


We just presented to the CIO the following options:
1) Leave the 6 position entry on screens, but we will make our own 
"rolling assumption" on the "century" value.
2) make screen dates proper length.

both solutions require us to touch lots of objects...



The frustrating thing is on the Y2K tool we bought back in 1997, from
Linoma,  had the option of handling all conversion in a callable 
routine.  We didn't choose that option....




On 11/28/2011 1:11 PM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I am pretty adamant about "real" dates also.  I've heard the arguments
> against it.  Mostly dealing with "special" dates.  A bulk of which could
> be handled by using null - some by reserved special dates for special
> meanings like using 0001-01-01 for this and 0001-01-02 for that...
>
> But, that being out of the way, they could have been using real dates and
> converting from iso to mmddyy for no other reason than to save screen real
> estate.
>
> Since Bruce Vining has posted this month (and about dates - no less) let's
> see if he pipes in.
>
>
> Rob Berendt