This is correct thinking.  These dates are not a problem for the reasons
stated.

Jim Mc Coy
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Christensen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 9:06 AM
Subject: Y2K date problems


>I have read a similar story about Y2K date problems from several sources
>(Computer World,
>CNN.COM and a Twin Cities newspaper), and I fail to see why their story is
>not just some
>misinformation.
>
>The story is that April 9th 1999 and September 9th 1999 are two possible
>dates for problems.
>The reasoning is that both dates (one Julian and one Gregorian format)
>cause a date of 9999,
>which many programmers may have used to signify end-of-file.
>
>Now I understand the concept of using all 9's to signal end of data in a
>file.  In the past, I too
>have used that method.   And the only reason I haven't lately is not that I
>got any smarter about
>using dates, just that most programs I write today are on-line database
>updates, and this
>technique I used was in batch programs where I had to merge two or more
>data files.
>
>But to me, all 9's would mean six 9's (999999), or 5 9's in the case of
>Julian dates; but never four nines.   And besides, who stores dates without
>the leading zeroes?
>   9/9/99 would be stored as either zero nine, zero nine, ninety nine or in
>YMD format of 990909.      September 9th does not get stored as 9999 in any
>computer system that I know of.
> Nor would a Julian date of 99099 get stored as 9999 either.
>You have to store the zero in order to know the significance of the
>numbers.
>
>Now maybe somebody here can point out  the error in my thinking, but my
>feeling is these
>two dates are completely off the mark as far as being a problem date.  And
>there are enough
>real problems with Y2K, we don't need some imaginary ones!
>
>Paul D. Christensen
>PC Enterprises Inc.
>Osakis MN