HP3000-L Archives

September 1999, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"FOLETTA,CHERYL (Non-HP-SantaClara,ex2)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
FOLETTA,CHERYL (Non-HP-SantaClara,ex2)
Date:
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:00:36 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
999999 is not a valid date 1999-09-09 is 090999(mmddyy) or 990909(yymmdd).
Did I miss something??


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 6:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Another Y2K date tomorrow


Larry asks:
>
> Okay Ken, call me dumb, but why would April 9 be a problem for Y2k?  Other
than


With a 6-digit date (MMDDYY or YYMMDD), there are known instances where the
programmers chose "999999" as "never" or "expired" or something special...
forgetting that it's a valid date (1999-09-09).

For example, if you have an IBM labelled tape that you didn't want to
expire, you may have put "999999" as the expiration date.  (Yeah, they
could have used 991231, but that would imply immediate recognition of
the Y2K problem :)

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                         http://www.allegro.com/sieler/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2