Larry writes:

> I understand the "999999" example, I don't understand why there was a concern over
> the April 9 date?

Sheesh...I guess I can't read.  Probably because it's in between April 9 and
September 9.

Someone just posted that April 9 is 99/99 ("julian" date of 99 in the year 99)...
perhaps it was used for similar purposes (to mark a "special" date)

>
> Stan Sieler wrote:
>
> > 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/
>


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