> Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum.
Plus ça change, plus c'esl la même chose is shorter. But, yes, I can't quarrel with your cynicism. > [It did. But Boss prevailed.] Why am I not surprised? But that's the sort of thing for which it's wise to maintain off-site documentation in case someone tries to claim that it was your decision. Such things may disappear from the files. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 12:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Here we go again On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:29:32 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >We had well over 20 years of warning on Y2K; management preferred to ignore >it. Apres moi le deluge (the balloon won't go up before I retire.) > Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. As I recall a design meeting, circa 1980: gil> We should store the year as 4 digits. Boss> But the system DATE function only returns 2. gil> We can front-end it, prefixing "19". When DATE gets better, we can demolish the scaffold. Boss> Too much effort to code (and document), and waste of storage. Our product isn't designed to last so long. [It did. But Boss prevailed.] -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
