Jeff Kell wrote:
>
> Paul Christensen wrote:
> >
> > One thing I still don't understand about this 9-9-99 thing, is that
> > in my 25 years (April 22nd, 1974 - 1st day of work!) of programming
> > experience, I have never seen 9-9-99 stored as 9999 [snip]
>
> While it is unlikely to be 'stored' as such, it is likely to be
> 'entered' as 9/9/99; if you have strict front-end editing (think of
> a VPLUS form) that requires a valid month-day-year you would be
> unable to introduce a 99/99/99 on the input side, while 9/9/99 would
> be considered valid.

Or, if those who think Image should have a DATE type had their way, the
database would reject the date as invalid, as it does in Oracle, no matter if
entered manually in a screen or if entered by a program.

Personally, I think "special meanings" should be handled as flags or
parameter values, not dates.  Makes reading the meaning a lot easier, too, if
good names are used for the these fields and data values.

>
> Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>

--
Richard Gambrell
Database Administrator and Consultant to Computing Services
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Dept. 4454
113 Hunter Hall, 615 McCallie Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
UTC phone: 423-755-4551 fax: 423-755-4025
UTC e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Business or private email: [log in to unmask]