Re: rdate fails Y2K
*- On 2 Jan, George Bonser wrote about "Re: rdate fails Y2K"
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
>> That's pretty funny, if you think about it. The National Institute of
>> Standards is either breaking a standard themselves, or isn't Y2K compliant.
>>
>> HA! That's great!
>>
>
> Someone else reported someplace else seeing a time update of Jan 01, 19100
> right after the rollover. I am wondering if this is the same source of the
> problem.
>
>
The 19100 problem is the result of sloppy programming. There is a c
library call that returns the year as the number of years from 1900,
also used in perl's Time::Local. Authors were using that as the two
digit year or just appending it to 19(not adding), so you are either
seeing dates like 1/1/100 or years of 19100. I highly doubt if the
NIST folks were doing that. But you never know!
Brian Servis
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanical Engineering | Never criticize anybody until you
Purdue University | have walked a mile in their shoes,
servis@purdue.edu | because by that time you will be a
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis | mile away and have their shoes.
Reply to: