Stan,

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

Larry Barnes

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/