James Overman <[log in to unmask]>
after
> David Greer ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> : <<big snip>>
> : probably default the cut-off date to 50 (i.e., 500101 will be assumed
> : to be January 1,2050, but January 1, 490101 will be interpreted as
> : 1949).  We have enough feedback from our customers to know that the
>
> Don't you want 490101 to be 2049 and 500101 to 1950??  Thus 000101 would be
> 2000 !!
 
This sounds a little like my former boss's "quick and dirty" fix.
The whole "Year 2000" situation is much more serious than that.  For
example, you couldn't possibly use this method on a stored Birth Date
field (just counted over 500 students-past and present- born prior to
1950, and then stopped counting...)  So, you'd end up with different
logic to "control" different types of date fields, and likely more
errors within the data.
 
Isn't it better and safer to convert the data to hold the century and
be done with it?  Yes, there's still a lot of work involved, but when
it's done, it's done.  You won't have the ugly date problem coming
back to slap you in the face on a regular basis.
 
Just my $.02 worth.
Debbie
 
-----------------------------------------------
 Debbie Blumenthal, Computer Services
 Conestoga College,  Kitchener, Ontario CANADA
 [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------
 
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?