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:
Stan Sieler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Stan Sieler <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 18:51:07 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Re:

> > 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).
>
> Nahhh. I used "999999" quite often in the 1960's, 1970's and even into the

Sheesh # 2.  Of course "999999" isn't the same as 1999-09-09.  Where's my
brain today?  Sorry!

The fear that some people are discussing is that 9/9/99 or 99/9/9 was used
as "never" or something special.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2