Changwoo Ryu wrote: > And I still doubt whether it's better to say the year XY (XY < 70) as > 20XY. Is it better to say "the year 68 is 2068", than "the year 68 is > 1968"?
I think it's quite simple: Code that calls this date routine and passes it a 2 diget year has a y2k problem. The date routine, it appears, does not. It would be quite sane of it to interpret a 2 diget year as 00xx AD. The other common hueristic is to interpret it as xx + 1900. But it doesn't really matter what it does, because it is the code that calls it with a 2 diget year that is at fault. -- see shy jo
